CELEX: 62014TN0811
Language: en
Date: 2014-12-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-811/14: Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)

2.3.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 73/41
            
         
      Action brought on 8 December 2014 — Unilever v OHIM — Technopharma (Fair & Lovely)
      (Case T-811/14)
      (2015/C 073/53)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Unilever NV (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: A. Fox, Solicitor)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Technopharma Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
      
         Details of the proceedings before OHIM
      
      
         Applicant: Applicant
      
         Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘Fair & Lovely’ — Application for registration No 4 045 092
      
         Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
      
         Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 October 2014 in Case R 1004/2013-4
      
         Form of order sought
      
      The applicant claims that the Court should:
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the contested decision and grant a suspension of the proceedings in Case R 1004/2013-4 pending determination of the national cancellation actions against the prior national registrations and application relied on by Technopharma Ltd. in Spain, Germany, France, the Benelux ant the United Kingdom;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order OHIM and any intervener to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Articles 64(1) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Rules 20(7)(c) and 50(1) of Regulation No 2868/95.