Judgment_paragraph 15 · Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (T-509/12)

15It must be stated that the aim of the applicant’s action, seeking rejection of the opposition for some specified goods, is, in reality, for the Court to adopt the decision that it claims the Board of Appeal should have taken when hearing the appeal. According to the second sentence of Article 64(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 the Board of Appeal may, after annulling the decision under appeal, exercise any power within the competence of the OHIM body which took that decision, in this case rule on the opposition and reject it. Consequently, that measure falls within the measures which may be taken by the Court in the exercise of its power to alter decisions, laid down by Article 65(3) of Regulation No 207/2009 (see, to that effect, Case T-334/01 MFE Marienfelde v OHIM - Vétoquinol (HIPOVITON) [2004] ECR II-2787, paragraph 19; Case T-363/04 Koipe v OHIM - Aceites del Sur (La Española) [2007] ECR II-3355, paragraphs 29 and 30; and judgment of 6 September 2013 in Case T‑599/10 Eurocool Logistik v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL), not published in the ECR, paragraph 25 and the case-law cited).