CELEX: 62008TN0578
Language: en
Date: 2008-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-578/08: Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)

7.3.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 55/44
            
         Action brought on 23 December 2008 — DVB Project v OHIM — Eurotel (DVB)
   (Case T-578/08)
   (2009/C 55/78)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: DVB Project (Le Grand Saconnex, Switzerland) (represented by: W. Pors, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurotel SpA (Milan, Italy)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2008 in case R 1387/2007-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The mark ‘DVB’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 38
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Dismissal of the request for invalidity
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Allowed the appeal and annulled the contested decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that a monopoly on the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity would seriously impair the business activities of traders in the field of telecommunication; Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to analyse the merits of the issue of acquired distinctiveness raised by the applicant.