This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0350
Case T-350/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
Case T-350/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
Case T-350/13: Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 38–39
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 252, 31.8.2013, p. 24–25
(HR)
|
31.8.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 252/38 |
Action brought on 2 July 2013 — Jordi Nogues v OHIM — Grupo Osborne (BADTORO)
(Case T-350/13)
2013/C 252/65
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Jordi Nogues SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J.R. Fernández Castellanos, M. J. Sanmartín Sanmartín and E. López Pares, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Grupo Osborne, SA (El Puerto de Santa María, Spain)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 April 2013 in Case R 1446/2012-2; |
|
— |
order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay the applicant’s costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark with word element ‘BADTORO’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 34 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 565 581
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Grupo Osborne, SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark with word element ‘TORO’, national word mark ‘EL TORO’ and Community word mark ‘TORO’, for goods and services in Classes 25, 34, 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law:
|
— |
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 |
|
— |
Incorrect departure from the general principle of comparison as a whole, without valid reason |