Action brought on 8 February 2012 - Scooters India v OHIM - Brandconcern (LAMBRETTA)

(Case T-51/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Scooters India Ltd (Sarojininagar, India) (represented by: B. Brandreth, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brandconcern BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

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 1 December 2011 in case R 2312/2010-1, insofar as the applicant's appeal against the revocation of the mark in respect of its registration for goods in class 12 was dismissed;

Remit the case back to OHIM with a recommendation by the General Court that it find that the mark has been put to genuine use in relation to goods in class 12, namely "scooters, parts and fittings for vehicles and apparatus for locomotion by land"; and

Order the Defendant to pay the applicant's costs incurred before the Board of Appeal and the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for revocation has been made: The word mark "LAMBRETTA", for goods in classes 3, 12, 14, 18 and 25 - Community trade mark registration No 1495100

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for revocation of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partially revoked the CTM registration No 1495100

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Cancellation Division, dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods and dismissed the ancillary appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly decided to revoke the CTM for all goods in class 12 despite having held that there was evidence of genuine use of an identifiable sub-category of goods in class 12. Further, it erred in law in not applying the authority in the case of Ansul BV v Ajax Brandbeveiliging (C-40/01) to the effect that use in relation to parts preserves a registration for the goods of which those parts are an integral part.

____________