CELEX: 62015TN0453
Language: en
Date: 2015-08-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-453/15: Action brought on 6 August 2015 — Trinity Haircare v OHIM — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)

28.9.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 320/46
            
         Action brought on 6 August 2015 — Trinity Haircare v OHIM — Advance Magazine Publishers (VOGUE)
   (Case T-453/15)
   (2015/C 320/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Trinity Haircare AG (Herisau, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Kroher and K. Bach, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark in black and white containing the word element ‘VOGUE’ — Community trade mark No 9 944 547
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Proceedings for a declaration of invalidity
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 May 2015 in Case R 2426/2014-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and declare the CTM No 009 944 547 VOGUE invalid;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM and the other party to the proceeding before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceeding.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 52(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.