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
2010/C 100/85
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Jackson International Trading Company Kurt D. Brühl Gesellschaft m.b.H. & Co. KG (Graz, Austria) (represented by: S. Di Natale and H.G. Zeiner, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Royal Shakespeare Company (Stratford-upon-Avon, United Kingdom)
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 November 2009 in case R 317/2009-1; and
—Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE’ for goods and services in classes 32, 33 and 42
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
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘RSC-ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘RSC ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, for services in class 41; non-registered trade mark ‘ROYAL SHAKESPEARE COMPANY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom for various services.
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division and, as a result, declared invalid the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the conditions for the application of the said provision have been met.