This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0348
Case T-348/12: Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
Case T-348/12: Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
Case T-348/12: Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
OJ C 311, 13.10.2012, p. 11–12
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
13.10.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 311/11 |
Action brought on 31 July 2012 — Globosat Programadora v OHIM — Sport TV Portugal (SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL)
(Case T-348/12)
2012/C 311/14
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Globosat Programadora Ltda (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) (represented by: S. Micallef, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sport TV Portugal, SA (Lisbon, Portugal)
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 23 May 2012 in case R 2079/2010-4; |
— |
Annul all costs orders made against the applicant by the Office, and order the later to bear the costs of the applicant. |
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 word mark ‘SPORT TV INTERNACIONAL’, for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6915094
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese trade mark registration No 329507 of the figurative mark ‘SPORTV’, for services in classes 38 and 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and Infringement of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.