EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0536
Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
OJ C 339, 29.9.2014, p. 20–21
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 339/20 |
Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
(Case T-536/14)
2014/C 339/24
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88 933
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: CTM registrations, International trade mark registrations and well-known mark ‘ST REGIS’
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.