Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0581

Case T-581/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, pp. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

25.1.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/26


Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)

(Case T-581/13)

2014/C 24/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the 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 25 July 2013 given in Case R 1374/2012-2;

Award the applicant the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 642 621

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: Community trade mark registrations Nos 8 456 469, 5 482 484, 532 895 and 364 257

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.


Top