CELEX: 62014TN0659
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-659/14: Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)

3.11.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 388/23
            
         Action brought on 15 September 2014 — Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto v OHIM — Bruichladdich Distillery (PORT CARLOTTE)
   (Case T-659/14)
   2014/C 388/28
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Instituto dos vinhos do Douro e do Porto, IP (Peso da Régua, Portugal) (represented by: P. Sousa e Silva, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bruichladdich Distillery Co. Ltd (Argyll, United Kingdom)
   
      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 8 July 2014 given in Case R 946/2013-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings, including those incurred in the proceedings before the Office.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘PORT CARLOTTE’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark No 5 4 21  474
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The grounds laid down in Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 7(1)(g), Article 53(1)(c) in conjunction with article 8(4) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the cancellation request
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) and (g) and Article 53(2)(d) of Regulation No 207/2009