CELEX: 62013TA0071
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-71/13: Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark ANNAPURNA — Application for annulment filed by the intervener — Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court — Genuine use of the trade mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form of use of the trade mark — Proof of use for the registered goods)

14.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 112/31
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2014 — Anapurna v OHIM — Annapurna (ANNAPURNA)
   (Case T-71/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark ANNAPURNA - Application for annulment filed by the intervener - Article 134(1) to (3) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court - Genuine use of the trade mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form of use of the trade mark - Proof of use for the registered goods))
   2014/C 112/40
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Anapurna GmbH (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: P. Ehrlinger and T. Hagen, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: L. Rampini, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Annapurna SpA (Prato, Italy) (represented by: S. Verea, K. Muraro and M. Balestriero, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 December 2012 (Case R 2409/2011 5), relating to revocation proceedings between Anapurna GmbH and Annapurna SpA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Rejects Annapurna SpA’s application for annulment;
            
         
               3.
            
            
               Orders Anapurna GmbH to pay the costs, with the exception of those incurred by Annapurna SpA;
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Orders Annapurna SpA to bear its own costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 101, 6.4.2013.