Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0024

    Case T-24/13: Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Cactus/OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)

    OJ C 101, 6.4.2013, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.4.2013   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 101/20


    Action brought on 21 January 2013 — Cactus/OHIM — Del Rio Rodríguez (CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ)

    (Case T-24/13)

    2013/C 101/43

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Cactus SA (Bertrange, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isabel Del Rio Rodríguez (Malaga, Spain)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 October 2012;

    Order the Defendant and — if applicable — Isabel Del Rio Rodriguez to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

    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 ‘CACTUS OF PEACE CACTUS DE LA PAZ’, for goods and services in classes 31, 39 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 8 489 643

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

    Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 963 694 of the word mark ‘CACTUS’ for goods and services in classes 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39, 41 and 42

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 76(1) and (2) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


    Top