This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0562
Case T-562/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
Case T-562/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
Case T-562/14: Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
OJ C 351, 6.10.2014, p. 18–19
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 28/07/2014
- Date lodged:
- 28/07/2014
- Author:
- General Court
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- English
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
- EUROVOC descriptor:
|
6.10.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 351/18 |
Action brought on 28 July 2014 — Yoo Holdings v OHIM — Eckes-Granini Group (YOO)
(Case T-562/14)
2014/C 351/22
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Yoo Holdings Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: D. Farnsworth, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini Group GmbH (Nieder-Olm, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2014 given in Case R 762/2013-2. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘YOO’ for the services in Classes 35, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 10 487 924
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and International trade mark registration for the word mark ‘YO’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 and 32
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and upheld the opposition in part
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(a) and (b) CTMR.
