EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0379
Case T-379/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
Case T-379/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
Case T-379/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
IO C 355, 17.11.2012, p. 28–29
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
17.11.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/28 |
Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
(Case T-379/12)
2012/C 355/61
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Electric Bike World Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, United States)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in case R 2308/2011-1; and |
— |
Order the Office and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’ for goods in classes 12, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8546401
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: Spanish trade mark registration No 1271758 of the word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’, for goods in class 28
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent that it rejected the opposition for goods in class 12; rejected the CTM application for these goods; and dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods in class 12
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.