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 62012TN0509

Case T-509/12: Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)

OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 64–65 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.1.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/64


Action brought on 16 November 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — Nanso Group (TEEN VOGUE)

(Case T-509/12)

2013/C 26/127

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Nanso Group Oy (Nokia, Finland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 September 2012 in case R 147/2011-4 and reject the opposition; and

Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application No 3529476

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: Swedish trade mark registration No 126124 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Swedish trade mark registration No 43934 for the figurative sign ‘Vogue’, for goods in class 25; Finish trade mark application No T 199 803 628 for the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 25; Registered auxiliary trade name ‘VO Gue’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

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


Top