CELEX: 62014TN0395
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-395/14: Action brought on 28 May 2014  — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)

15.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 315/65
            
         Action brought on 28 May 2014 — Best-Lock (Europe) v OHIM — Lego Juris (Shape of a toy figure)
   (Case T-395/14)
   2014/C 315/109
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Best-Lock (Europe) Ltd (Colne, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Becker, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 March 2014 in Case R 1695/2013-4 and declare Community trade mark No 50  518 invalid in respect of Class 28;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the three-dimensional mark in the shape of a toy figure for goods in Classes 9, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark No 50  518
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Lego Juris A/S
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: absolute grounds for invalidity and bad faith
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(e)(i) and (ii) and 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009