This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0514
Case T-514/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
Case T-514/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
Case T-514/13: Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
IO C 352, 30.11.2013, p. 18–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
30.11.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 352/18 |
Action brought on 23 September 2013 — AgriCapital v OHIM — agri.capital (AGRI.CAPITAL)
(Case T-514/13)
2013/C 352/34
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: AgriCapital Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: P. Meyer and M. Gramsch, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: agri.capital GmbH (Münster, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 July 2013 given in Case R 2236/2012-2; |
|
— |
Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs of proceedings, as well as those incurred by the applicant. |
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 ‘AGRI.CAPITAL’ for goods and services in Classes 4, 7, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 8 341 323
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 192 322 for the word mark ‘AgriCapital’ for services in Class 36 and Community trade mark registration No 4 589 339 for the word mark ‘AGRICAPITAL’ for services in Class 36
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) CTMR.