Action brought on 8 August 2012 - Vuitton Malletier v OHIM - Nanu-Nana (device of a checked pattern)

(Case T-359/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Louis Vuitton Malletier (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Roncaglia, G. Lazzaretti and N. Parrotta, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG (Berlin, Germany)

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 4 May 2012 in case R 1855/2011-1;

Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant during these proceedings; and

Order Nanu-Nana Handelsgesellschaft mbH für Geschenkartikel & Co.KG to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the OHIM Cancellation Division and Boards of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The figurative mark representing a device of a checked pattern for goods in class 18 - Community trade mark application No 370445

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed its request for declaration of invalidity against the CTM on the basis of absolute grounds, namely Article 52(1)(a) in connection with Article 7(1)(b), (c), (d), (e)(iii) and (f) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, and on absolute grounds under Article 52(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Upheld the request for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law:

-    Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009; and

-    Infringement of Article 7(3) and Article 52(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.

____________