- 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-685/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Blue Coat Systems (BLUECO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0685
62013TN0685
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
22.2.2014
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 52/41
(Case T-685/13)
2014/C 52/79
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (Sunnyvale, United States of America)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 October 2013 in Case R 2028/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;
—Order OHIM and Blue Coast Systems, Inc., should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blue Coat Systems, Inc.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUE COAT’ for goods in Class 9 and services in Classes 38 and 42 — Community trade mark No 3 016 235
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009