Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62013TN0640

Case T-640/13: Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

IO C 39, 8.2.2014, p. 24–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

8.2.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/24

Action brought on 2 December 2013 — Sto v OHIM — Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding (CRETEO)

(Case T-640/13)

2014/C 39/43

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sto AG (Stühlingen, Germany) (represented by: K. Kern and J. Sklepek, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG (Baar, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Alter the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 September 2013 in Case R 905/2012-4 to the effect that the opposition is upheld to the extent put forward in the appeal and Community trade mark application No 9207085 is rejected;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Fixit Trockenmörtel Holding AG

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CRETEO’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19 — Community trade mark application No 9207085

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word marks ‘StoCretec’ and ‘STOCRETE’ for goods in Classes 1, 2, 17 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

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

Top