This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0125
Case T-125/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)
Case T-125/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)
Case T-125/14: Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)
OJ C 142, 12.5.2014, p. 40–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 142/40 |
Action brought on 14 February 2014 — Gappol Marzena Porczyńska v OHIM — GAP (ITM) (GAPPol)
(Case T-125/14)
2014/C 142/52
Language in which the application was lodged: Polish
Parties
Applicant: PP Gappol Marzena Porczyńska (Łódź, Poland) (represented by J. Gwiazdowska, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: GAP (ITM), Inc. (San Francisco, United States)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 December 2013 in Case R 686/2013-1; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.
Community trade mark in respect of which registration is sought: a figurative mark containing the word element ‘GAPPol’ for goods and services in Classes 20, 25 and 37 — Application No 8 346 165 for a Community trade mark.
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 word marks ‘GAP’, Community figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, as well as national word marks ‘GAP’ and national figurative marks containing the word element ‘GAP’, for goods in Class 25.
Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.