Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62013TN0076

Case T-76/13: Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)

OJ C 108, 13.4.2013, pp. 30–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

13.4.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/30


Action brought on 11 February 2013 — Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon/OHIM — Staccata (QUARTODIMIGLIO)

(Case T-76/13)

2013/C 108/77

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des montres Longines, Francillon SA (Saint-Imier, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Staccata Srl (Como, Italy)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision issued on 26 November 2012 (Case R 62/2012-5) on the grounds that articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 have indeed been fulfilled;

Order the OHIM and STACCATA S.r.l. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

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 figurative mark containing a device of extended wings and the word element ‘QUARTODIMIGLIO’ for goods in classes 9, 14, 16, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 9 260 597

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative marks containing a device of extended wings and some of them the word element ‘LONGINES’ — Community trade mark registration No 225 714, International registrations No 401 319, No 529 334, No 610 902 and No 298 063 for goods in classes 9 and 14

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.


Top