EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62012TN0193

Case T-193/12: Action brought on 8 May 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten-Brauerei (H)

IO C 194, 30.6.2012, p. 26–27 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.6.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 194/26


Action brought on 8 May 2012 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Holsten-Brauerei (H)

(Case T-193/12)

2012/C 194/44

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: J.-C. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Holsten-Brauerei AG (Hamburg, Germany)

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 23 February 2012 in Case R 2340/2010-1 on the basis of incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark, in so far as it upheld the opposition against the extension of protection of international registration No 984 017;

order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the appeal procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the international registration which has effect in the European Union of a figurative mark representing an escutcheon with the letter ‘H’ for goods in Class 32 — No 984 017

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Holsten-Brauerei AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German figurative mark representing a knight on horseback with a shield bearing the letter ‘H’ for goods in Class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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


Top