This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0032
Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
Case T-32/12: Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
OJ C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 17–17
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.4.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 109/17 |
Action brought on 20 January 2012 — Vardar v OHIM — Joker (pingulina)
(Case T-32/12)
2012/C 109/38
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Muslahadin Vardar (Löhne, Germany) (represented by: I. Höfener and M. Boden, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Joker, Inc. (Allen, United States)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2011 in case R 475/2011-4, and alter it so that the opposition is rejected and the applicant’s application for registration is granted; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘pingulina’, in orange, violet, blue, green, yellow and black, for goods in classes 20, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8402992
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: The opposition was based inter alia upon the International trade mark registration No 537386A of the figurative mark ‘PINGU’, in black and white, for goods inter alia in classes 20, 24 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier marks.