Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62015TN0528

    Case T-528/15: Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

    OJ C 381, 16.11.2015, p. 48–49 (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:
    08/09/2015
    Date lodged:
    08/09/2015
    Author:
    General Court
    Form:
    Judicial information
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment

    16.11.2015   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 381/48

    Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

    (Case T-528/15)

    (2015/C 381/59)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo SpA Servizi Commerciali (Illasi, Italy)

    Details of the proceedings before OHIM

    Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

    Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Bimbo’ — Application for registration No 10 028 405

    Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

    Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2015 in Joined Cases R 2512/2013-4 and R 2549/2013-4

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    —

    modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28;

    —

    subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision

    —

    order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2).

    Pleas in law

    —

    Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95;

    —

    Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law;

    —

    Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009;

    —

    Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation No 207/2009.
    Top