EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0183
Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
Case T-183/13: Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
OJ C 171, 15.6.2013, p. 28–28
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.6.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/28 |
Action brought on 28 March 2013 — Skype/OHIM — British Sky Broadcasting and Sky IP International (SKYPE)
(Case T-183/13)
2013/C 171/54
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Skype (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Fowler, Solicitor, J. Schmitt, lawyer and J. Mellor, QC)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) and Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 January 2013 in Case R 2398/2010-4; |
|
— |
Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYPE’ — Community trade mark application No 3 660 065 for services in class 38
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 3 203 411
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.