CELEX: 62013TN0050
Language: en
Date: 2013-01-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-50/13: Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)

23.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/26
            
         Action brought on 25 January 2013 — Think Schuhwerk v OHIM — Müller (VOODOO)
   (Case T-50/13)
   2013/C 86/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Think Schuhwerk GmbH (Kopfing, Austria) (represented by: M. Gail, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Andreas Müller (Ulm, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 November 2012 in Case R 474/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘VOODOO’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark No 5 832 464
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Andreas Müller
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application was rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009 and infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009