- 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-141/12: Action brought on 26 March 2012 — Pro-Duo v OHIM — El Corte Inglés (GO!)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0141
62012TN0141
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
9.6.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 165/26
(Case T-141/12)
2012/C 165/46
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Pro-Duo (Ghent, Belgium) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: El Corte Inglés, SA (Madrid, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Suspend the action pending the outcome of the Cancellation proceedings No 5011 C;
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 January 2012 in case R 1373/2011-4, insofar as it declined to suspend proceedings pending outcome of the Cancellation proceedings, or to annul the decision entirely; and
—Order the Opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black, white and grey ‘GO!’, for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8859712
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6070981 of the figurative mark ‘GO GLORIA ORTIZ’, for goods in class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market erred in law in failing to suspend the proceedings; and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was a likelihood of confusion between the two trademarks.