EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0604
Case T-604/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
Case T-604/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
Case T-604/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
OJ C 24, 25.1.2014, p. 32–32
(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 24/32 |
Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
(Case T-604/13)
2014/C 24/58
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany)
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 6 September 2013 given in Case R 1538/2012-2; |
|
— |
Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener, in case it was to intervene. |
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 ‘101’ for goods in Classes 13, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 634
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 26 708 of the word mark ‘501’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.