This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0684
Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
IO C 52, 22.2.2014, p. 41–41
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 52/41 |
Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
(Case T-684/13)
2014/C 52/78
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)
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 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety; |
|
— |
Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bolloré SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621
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