Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0522

Case T-522/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA)

OJ C 13, 14.1.2012, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

14.1.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 13/16


Action brought on 28 September 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (APLI-AGIPA)

(Case T-522/11)

2012/C 13/33

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France)

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 13 July 2011 in Case R 1454/2010-2 in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes; paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture); instructional and teaching material (except apparatus); plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes); printers’ type; printing blocks’;

refuse Community trade mark application No 5676382 ‘APLI-AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Apli-Agipa SAS.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘APLI-AGIPA’ for goods in Class 16.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AGIPA’ and Spanish figurative mark that contains the word element ‘a-agipa’, both for goods in Class 16.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

Plea in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


Top