This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0175
Case T-175/13: Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
Case T-175/13: Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
Case T-175/13: Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
IO C 147, 25.5.2013, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.5.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 147/28 |
Action brought on 25 March 2013 — Omega v OHIM — Omega Engineering (Ω OMEGA)
(Case T-175/13)
2013/C 147/51
Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
Parties
Applicant: Omega SA (Biel/Bienne, Switzerland) (represented by: P. González-Bueno Catalán de Ocón, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Omega Engineering, Inc. (Stamford, United States)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the General 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 10 January 2013 in Joined Cases R 2055/2011-1 and R 2186/2011-1 and grant protection for the trade mark concerned in respect of all of the goods requested; |
|
— |
order OHIM and Omega Engineering, Inc. to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Omega SA
Community trade mark concerned: International registration, designating the European Union, of the figurative mark with word element ‘Ω OMEGA’ for goods in Class 9 — international registration No 997 036 designating the European Union
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Omega Engineering, Inc.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and Community word marks ‘OMEGA’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and protection applied for refused in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal and more extensive partial refusal of the protection applied for
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009