CELEX: 62013TN0498
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-498/13: Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/62
            
         Action brought on 16 September 2013 — Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp v OHIM — Vincci Hoteles (NAMMU)
   (Case T-498/13)
   2013/C 344/115
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Nanu-Nana Joachim Hoepp GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vincci Hoteles, SA (Alcobendas, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 June 2013 given in Case R 611/2012-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘NAMMU’ for gods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 44 — Community trade mark registration No 5 238 704
   
      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 application was based on Article 8(1)(b), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) CTMR
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for invalidity in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 57 (2) and (3) CTMR.