|
17.4.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 100/64 |
Action brought on 24 February 2010 — Tempus Vade v OHIM — Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE)
(Case T-81/10)
2010/C 100/95
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Tempus Vade, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Palacios Serrano (Alcobendas, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Declare that the decision of 7 January 2010 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 944/2006-1 does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 May 2008, made in opposition proceedings No B 1009607 and, accordingly, registers Community trade mark No 5 016 704 AIR FORCE in respect of goods in Class 14. |
|
— |
Declare that registration of the Community trade mark No 5 016 704 AIR FORCE is refused pursuant to the prohibition on registration provided for in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
|
— |
Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Palacios Serrano.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AIR FORCE’ (application No 5 016 704) in respect of goods in Class 14.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tempus Vade, S.L.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark ‘TIME FORCE’ (application No 395 657) in respect of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25; and four other Community figurative marks which contain the word element ‘TIME FORCE’: application No 398 776 in respect of goods in Class 14, 18 and 25; application No 3 112 133 in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 18, 25, 34, 35 and 37, and applications Nos 1 998 375 and 2 553 667 in respect of goods in Class 14.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition.
Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.