- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0506
62009TN0506
With us you find everything. Try it now!
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
27.2.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/37
(Case T-506/09)
2010/C 51/71
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: The Carlyle, LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mascha & Regner Consulting KEG (Vienna, Austria)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2009 in case R 240/2009-4; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the request for revocation: The word mark ‘THE CARLYLE’, for goods and services in classes 3, 25 and 42
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially rejected the request for revocation
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Revoked the Community trade mark concerned
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously employed a too restrictive interpretation of the concept of genuine use. Moreover, the Board of Appeal failed: (i) to take into consideration properly the evidence of use submitted by the applicant before the Cancellation Division; (ii) to assess correctly the scope of the said evidence of use; and (iii) to make an overall assessment thereof.