This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0254
Case T-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
Case T-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
Case T-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
OJ C 194, 24.6.2014, pp. 31–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.6.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 194/31 |
Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
(Case T-254/14)
2014/C 194/40
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd. (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Hirschel, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)
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 29 January 2014 in case R 2035/2012-1 and allow the applicant’s trade mark applied for; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘NEW MAX’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06 474
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘MAX’, for services in Class 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and complete rejection of the trade mark applied for
Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue