Action brought on 10 February 2010 - Jackson International v OHIM - Royal Shakespeare (ROYAL SHAKESPEARE)

(Case T-60/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

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)

Form of order sought

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.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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.

____________