EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0627
Case T-627/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
Case T-627/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
Case T-627/15: Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
IO C 68, 22.2.2016, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
22.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 68/29 |
Action brought on 11 November 2015 — Frame v OHIM – Bianca-Moden (BIANCALUNA)
(Case T-627/15)
(2016/C 068/38)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: M. Borghese, R. Giordano, and E. Montelione, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany)
Details of the proceedings before OHIM
Applicant for the trade mark at issue: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘BIANCALUNA’ — Application for registration No 11 251 808
Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 August 2015 in Case R 2952/2014-5
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the contested decision; and/or |
— |
remit the case to OHIM so that the likelihood of confusion is properly analyzed taking into account the results of the proof of use filed by Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG; |
— |
order OHIM to pay the costs both at the first instance and on the present proceedings; |
— |
in the alternative, reform the contested decision so that the following goods in class 25 would be registered: underwear, pyjamas, t-shirts, panties, undues. |
Pleas in law
— |
Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in selecting just one earlier right; |
— |
Erroneous interpretation of Regulation No 207/2009 in evaluating the likelihood of confusion amongst the signs in comparison. |