CELEX: 62008TN0187
Language: en
Date: 2008-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-187/08: Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)

5.7.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/47
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Rodd & Gunn Australia v OHIM (Representation of a dog)
   (Case T-187/08)
   (2008/C 171/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Rodd & Gunn Australia Limited (Wellington, New Zealand) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister and N. Jenkins, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 March 2008 in case R 1245/2007-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order restitutio in integrum in respect of Community trade mark No 339 218; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark consisting of a representation of a dog for goods in classes 16, 18, and 25 — Community trade mark No 339 218
   
      Decision of the Trade Marks and Register Department: Refusal of the application for restitutio in integrum
   
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 47 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as renewal of the Community trade mark is permitted not only to the proprietor of such or to its professional representative; the Board of Appeal erred in law and in its assessment of the facts in holding that the Applicant and its authorised representative had failed to exercise due care in the circumstances; the Board of Appeal erred in law in holding that it was careless of the Applicant to appoint Computer Patent Annuities Limited, a trade marks renewals agency, to renew its marks.