Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0084

    Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

    IO C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 48–48 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    5.5.2014   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 135/48


    Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)

    (Case T-84/14)

    2014/C 135/61

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, France)

    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 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1;

    Order the defendant to pay the costs of 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 word mark ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445

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

    Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.


    Top