CELEX: 62011TN0267
Language: en
Date: 2011-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-267/11: Action brought on 24 May 2011 — Video Research USA/OHMI (VR)

16.7.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 211/31
            
         Action brought on 24 May 2011 — Video Research USA/OHMI (VR)
   (Case T-267/11)
   2011/C 211/65
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Video Research USA, Inc. (New York, U.S.A.) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 March 2011 in case R 1187/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) with a recommendation that restitutio in integrum be granted in respect of community trade mark application No 919324;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘VR’ — Community trade mark registration No 919324
   
      Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Rejected the request for restitutio in integrum and confirmed the cancellation of the Community trade mark registration No 919324
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 81 of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in the application of this article and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the applicant’s representatives had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances.