This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0084
Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
Case T-84/14: Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
IO C 135, 5.5.2014, p. 48–48
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.5.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 135/48 |
Action brought on 6 February 2014 — Harrys Pubar v OHIM — Harry's New York Bar (HARRY'S NEW YORK BAR)
(Case T-84/14)
2014/C 135/61
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Harrys Pubar AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harry’s New York Bar SA (Paris, 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 14 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 1038/2012-1 and R 1045/2012-1; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings. |
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 ‘HARRY’S NEW YORK BAR’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 3 383 445
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Swedish trade mark registrations Nos 356 009, 320 026, 315 142, 55 6513-1066 for goods and services in Classes 25 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal in part in Case R 1038/2012-1 and dismissed the appeal in Case R 1045/2012-1
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 4 CTMR.