CELEX: 62013TN0197
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-197/13: Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/51
            
         Action brought on 1 April 2013 — M.E.M. v OHIM (MONACO)
   (Case T-197/13)
   2013/C 156/93
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: MARQUES DE L’ÉTAT DE MONACO (M.E.M.) (Monaco, Monaco) (represented by: S. Arnaud, lawyer)
   
      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 29 January 2013 in Case R 113/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: International registration designating the European Union of the word mark ‘MONACO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 43 — International registration designating the European Union No 1 069 254
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               First plea, alleging infringement of Articles 5, 7(1)(b) and (c) and 7(2) of Regulation No 207/2009
            
         
               —
            
            
               Second plea, alleging infringement of the law in the interpretation of distinctiveness
            
         
               —
            
            
               Third plea, alleging a manifest error in the assessment of distinctiveness
            
         
               —
            
            
               Fourth plea, alleging a failure to state reasons, insufficient reasoning or contradictory reasons for the refusal of registration for the goods in Class 9
            
         
               —
            
            
               Fifth plea, alleging the infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Article 296 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights on the ground of insufficient reasoning