CELEX: 62011TN0666
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-666/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)

14.4.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 109/14
            
         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Budziewska v OHIM — Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (representation of a puma)
   (Case T-666/11)
   2012/C 109/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: Polish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Danuta Budziewska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Masłowski, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Puma AG Rudolf Dassler Sport (Herzogenaurach, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2011 in Case No R 1137/2010-3, dismissing the appeal brought by the applicant against the decision annulling her design; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community design in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: design (representation of a puma) registered under No 697016-0001, published on behalf of the applicant in the Community Designs Bulletin of 2 May 2007.
   
      Proprietor of the Community design: the applicant.
   
      Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
   
      Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the Community design does not satisfy the definition of a design as set out in Article 3(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (OJ 2002 L 3, p. 1) and also fails to meet the requirements set out in Articles 4 to 9 of Regulation No 6/2002, in addition to other grounds for invalidity pursuant to Article 25(1)(c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of that regulation.
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: declaration of invalidity of the design.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.
   
      Pleas in law: breach of Article 6(1) of Regulation No 6/2002 by reason of the refusal to take account of the individual character of the design notified by the applicant.