This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0166
Case T-166/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
Case T-166/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
Case T-166/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
OJ C 142, 12.5.2014, p. 45–46
(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 142/45 |
Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
(Case T-166/14)
2014/C 142/58
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: PRS Mediterranean Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Richmond, United States)
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 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEOWEB’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 6 184 568
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: Various national trademarks of the word mark ‘GEOWEB’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 and the non-registered mark ‘GEOWEB’ used in the course of trade in all Member States of the European Union
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal proceedings
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.