- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-569/13: Action brought on 28 October 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0569
62013TN0569
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
25.1.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 24/25
(Case T-569/13)
2014/C 24/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cafe' do Brasil SpA (Melito di Napoli, Italy)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 August 2013 given in Case R 1561/2012-4;
—Order the intervener 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 figurative mark in red, gold, white and black containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO Espresso Napoletano’ for a range of goods and services in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 933
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark No 291 655 for the word ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known mark in Spain ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.