CELEX: 62011TN0495
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-495/11: Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)

26.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 347/37
            
         Action brought on 19 September 2011 — Streng v OHIM — Gismondi (PARAMETRICA)
   (Case T-495/11)
   2011/C 347/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Michael Streng (Erding, Germany) (represented by: A. Pappert, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fulvio Gismondi (Roma, Italy)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1348/2010-4, and refer the case back to the Fourth Board of Appeal; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PARAMETRICA’, for services in classes 36 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 6048433
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 30311096 of the word mark ‘parameta’, for services in classes 35, 38, 41 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Rules 19(2) and (3) in connection with Rule 98(1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the submitted documents containing WIPO INID codes are not in the language of the proceedings and/or taken together with the translation provided in the writ of 3 November 2008, do not constitute ‘translation’ within the meaning of Rule 98(1) CTMIR.