This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62009TN0506
Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
Case T-506/09: Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
OJ C 51, 27.2.2010, p. 37–37
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.2.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 51/37 |
Action brought on 16 December 2009 — Carlyle v OHIM — Mascha & Regner Consulting (THE CARLYLE)
(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.