Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62014TN0638

Case T-638/14: Action brought on 26 August 2014  — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

OJ C 380, 27.10.2014, p. 17–18 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

27.10.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 380/17


Action brought on 26 August 2014 — Frinsa del Noroeste v OHIM — Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce (FRISA)

(Case T-638/14)

2014/C 380/23

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Frinsa del Noroeste, SA (Santa Eugenia de Riviera, Spain) (represented by: J. Botella Reyna, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Frisa Frigorífico Rio Doce, SA (Espirito Santo, Brazil)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

refuse registration of Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29  721 FRISA to distinguish goods in Class 29 and services in Classes 35 and 39.

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: Figurative mark with word element ‘FRISA’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 35 and 39 — Application for Community trade mark No 1 0 3 29  721

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark with word element ‘Frinsa’ for goods in Class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and opposition rejected in its entirety

Pleas in law: In its decision of 1 July 2014 in Joined Cases R 1547/2013-4 and R 1851/2013-4, the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) did not proceed to examine the applicant’s arguments since it confined itself to deciding the cases in an identical manner, examining only the proof of use submitted during the proceedings.


Top