Action brought on 21 November 2008 - Psytech International v OHIM - Institute for Personality & Ability Testing (16PF)

(Case T-507/08)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Psytech International Ltd (Pulloxhill, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Phillips, Solicitor and N. Saunders, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Institute for Personality & Ability Testing, Inc. (Champaign, United States)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2008 in case R 1012/2007-2 and remit the application for a declaration of invalidity to the OHIM to allow it to proceed, and

Order OHIM 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 "16PF" for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 - Community trade mark registration No 1 892 652

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b), 7(1)(c), 7(1)(d) and 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) should have found on the evidence before it that the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was devoid of any distinctive character; (ii) failed to apply the correct legal test and failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it; and (iii) should have found on the evidence before it that the application for the registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity was made in bad faith.

____________