Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0219

Case T-219/11: Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

OJ C 194, 2.7.2011, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)



Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/16

Action brought on 15 April 2011 — Otero González v OHIM — Apli-Agipa (AGIPA)

(Case T-219/11)

2011/C 194/25

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish


Applicant: José Luis Otero González (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: S. Correa, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Apli-Agipa SAS (Dormans, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant requests the Court to:

annul the resolution of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 February 2011 in Case R 0556/2010-2, in relation to the partial granting of the application for the following goods: ‘photographs, adhesives (glues) for stationery or household purposes, paint brushes, typewriters and office requisites (except furniture), instructional and teaching material (except apparatus), plastic materials for packaging (not included in other classes), printers’ type, printing blocks’.

refuse Community trade mark application No 5 676 721‘AGIPA’ in respect of all the goods granted in Class 16;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: APLI-AGIPA S.A.S.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AGIPA’ (registration application No 5 676 721) for goods in Class 16.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AGIPA’ (No 2 216 879) and Spanish figurative mark that contains the word element ‘a — agipa’ (No 1 269 511), both for goods in Class 16.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld in part.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.