CELEX: 62007TN0402
Language: en
Date: 2007-11-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-402/07: Action brought on 6 November 2007 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)

12.1.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 8/19
            
         Action brought on 6 November 2007 — Kaul v OHIM — Bayer (ARCOL)
   (Case T-402/07)
   (2008/C 8/34)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Kaul GmbH (Elmshorn, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 1 August 2007 in Case R 782/2000-2, pertaining to the opposition based on Community trade mark registration No 49 106 ‘CAPOL’ against Community trade mark application No 195 370 ‘ARCOL’, be annulled;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the opposition against Community trade mark application No 195 370 ‘ARCOL’, be granted;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: Bayer AG
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘ARCOL’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 20 — application No 195 370
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kaul GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘CAPOL’ for goods in classes 1
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 63(6), 73, and 74 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94(‘the CTMR’).
   According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal failed to take into account the obligations laid down in Articles 63(6) and 73 of the CTMR by disregarding the guidance provided by the Court of Justice in Case C-29/05 P and by refusing to exercise any discretion under Article 74(2) of the CTMR. Furthermore, the applicant contends that the Board failed to state reasons on which it based its decision.