I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
EN
2011/C 238/53
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Applicant: Süd-Chemie AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: W. Baron von der Osten-Sacken and A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BYK-Cera BV (Deventer, Netherlands)
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2011 (Case R 1585/2010-4);
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.
Applicant for a Community trade mark: BYK-Cera BV
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CERATIX’ for goods in Class 1 — application No 6 358 832
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘CERATOFIX’ for goods in Class 1
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the opposition was rejected
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the defendant:
—Erred in reducing the evidential value of the documents submitted by the applicant with the general reasoning that they are connected with the applicant itself;
—Did not take account of promotional measures as ‘genuine use’;
—Did not include all the relevant circumstances in assessing whether the use of the trade mark was genuine and;
—Did not examine the evidence of use provided as a whole.