CELEX: 62013TN0616
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-616/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)

25.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/35
            
         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — AIC v OHIM — ACV Manufacturing (Heat exchanger inserts)
   (Case T-616/13)
   2014/C 24/65
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: AIC S.A. (Gdynia, Poland) (represented by: J. Radłowski, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ACV Manufacturing (Seneffe, Belgium)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 September 2013 given in Case R 293/2012-3;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The design for a product described as ‘heat exchanger inserts’ — Registered Community Design No 1 137 152-0001
   
      Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: It was alleged that the design did not fulfil the requirements of Article 4(1) and (2), in conjunction with Articles 5 and 6 and in particular Article 8(1) and (2) CDR
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested RCD invalid
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 25(1)(b) in conjunction with Article 4(2) CDR.