CELEX: 62015TN0132
Language: en
Date: 2015-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-132/15: Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)

21.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 311/48
            
         Action brought on 12 June 2015 — IR v OHIM — Pirelli Tyre (popchrono)
   (Case T-132/15)
   (2015/C 311/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: IR (Caen, France) (represented by: C. de Marguerye, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pirelli Tyre SpA (Milan, Italy)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘popchrono’ — Community trade mark No 4 177 267
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 February 2015 in Case R 217/2014-5
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               receive its conclusions;
            
         
               —
            
            
               rescind the decision of 13 February 2015 of the Board of Appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               confirm the property rights of the trademark POPCHRONO;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of the right to be heard;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Narrow interpretation of ‘genuine use’ by the Board of Appeal;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Resumption of genuine use of a community trademark in question should have been examined by OHIM according to pieces submitted by the applicant, including a prior license agreement for more than three months before the introduction of the revocation request;
            
         
               —
            
            
               OHIM’s failure to take account of the contempt of elementary rules of competition and not considered the will of obstruction of a party against the other party.