CELEX: 62013TN0543
Language: en
Date: 2013-10-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-543/13: Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)

14.12.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 367/33
            
         Action brought on 4 October 2013 — Three-N-Products/OHIM — Munindra (PRANAYUR)
   (Case T-543/13)
   2013/C 367/59
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Three-N-Products Private Ltd (New Delhi, India) (represented by: N. Colombo, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Munindra Holding BV (Lelystad, Netherlands)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 638/2012-4 dated 25 July 2013 in its entirety and, consequently, reject the registration of the opposite application PRANAYUR;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order Munindra Holding B.V. to pay the costs incurred by Three-N-Products Private Ltd.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAYUR’ for goods in classes 5 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 7 170 095
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘AYUR’ and figurative marks containing the word element ‘Ayur’
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.