CELEX: 62013TN0577
Language: en
Date: 2013-10-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-577/13: Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)

25.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/26
            
         Action brought on 30 October 2013 — Zehnder v OHIM — UAB ‘Amalva’ (komfovent)
   (Case T-577/13)
   2014/C 24/46
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Zehnder Verkaufs- und Verwaltungs-AG (Gränichen, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Krenzel, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: UAB ‘Amalva’ (Vilnius, Lithuania)
   
      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 29 August 2013 given in Case R 255/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the other parties to the proceedings 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 figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘komfovent’ for goods in Class 11 — Community trade mark registration No 4 635 272
   
      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 were those laid down in Article 53(1)(a) in conjunction with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the contested CTM invalid
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 CTMR.