EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012TN0277

Case T-277/12: Action brought on 25 June 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)

OJ C 273, 8.9.2012, p. 12–12 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/12


Action brought on 25 June 2012 — Bimbo v OHIM — Café do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)

(Case T-277/12)

2012/C 273/20

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)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Café do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)

Form of order sought

Modify the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2012 in case R 1017/2011-4;

In the alternative and only in the case the former claim would be rejected, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2012 in case R 1017/2011-4; and

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs of the 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 in black, red, gold and white ‘Caffè KIMBO’, for goods in classes 11, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 3478311

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 291655 of the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in class 30; Earlier well-known mark in Spain ‘BIMBO’ for goods in class 30

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Articles 64, 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009; and

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.


Top