CELEX: 62015TN0315
Language: en
Date: 2015-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-315/15: Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)

7.12.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 406/31
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2015 — Vince v OHIM (ELECTRIC HIGHWAY)
   (Case T-315/15)
   (2015/C 406/32)
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Dale Vince (Gloucestershire, United Kingdom) (represented by: B. Longstaff, barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘ELECTRIC HIGHWAY’ — Application for registration No 010655819
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2015 in Case R 1442/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               allow the applicant’s application for the mark to proceed in full to registration;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Incorrect interpretation of the meaning of the mark in relation to Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Incorrect interpretation of the relevant services in Class 39;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The meaning of the mark asserted by the Board does not describe the services in any event;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.