CELEX: 62015TN0081
Language: en
Date: 2015-02-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-81/15: Action brought on 20 February 2015  — Facchinello v OHIM — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)

13.4.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 118/41
            
         Action brought on 20 February 2015 — Facchinello v OHIM — Olimpia Splendid (Synthesis)
   (Case T-81/15)
   (2015/C 118/53)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Danila Facchinello (Molinella, Italy) (represented by: F. Torlontano, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olimpia Splendid SpA (Gualtieri, Italy)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Proprietor of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Synthesis’ — Community trade mark No 2 8 71  069
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Revocation proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 2169/2013-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 and, consequently, declare that the Community trade mark Synthesis is not revoked in respect of goods in Class 11 (apparatus for air conditioning);
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the First Board of Appeal revoked the Community trade mark on the ground that the evidence adduced by its proprietor was not capable of establishing genuine use of that mark.