This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0270
Case T-270/10: Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Conceria Kara v OHIM (KARA)
Case T-270/10: Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Conceria Kara v OHIM (KARA)
Case T-270/10: Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Conceria Kara v OHIM (KARA)
SL C 221, 14.8.2010, p. 54–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.8.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 221/54 |
Action brought on 8 June 2010 — Conceria Kara v OHIM (KARA)
(Case T-270/10)
()
2010/C 221/87
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
Parties
Applicant: Conceria Kara Srl (Trezzano sul Naviglio, Italy) (represented by: P. Picciolini, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dima — Gida Tekstil Deri Insaat Maden Turizm Orman Urünleri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Ltd Sti
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 29 March 2010 on the appeal against the decision of the Opposition Division in Case B 1171453 in proceedings brought by Conceria Kara rejecting Community trade mark application No 5346457. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: DIMA — TEKSTIL DERI INSAAT MADEM TURIZM ORMAN URÜNLERE SANAYI VE TICARET LTD. STI.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘KARRA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 9, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 35.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Italian figurative marks ‘KARA’ (No 765 532, for goods in Class 35, and No 761 972 for goods and services in Classes 18 and 25), Community figurative trade mark No 887 810 (‘KARA’) for goods in, inter alia, Classes 18 and 25, and the business name of the Italian company ‘CONCERIA KARA S.R.L.’, the right to the use of which is claimed in relation to the same goods and services for earlier marks.
Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.
Pleas in law: Failure to state reasons and misinterpretation and misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.