- 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-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0054
62012TN0054
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
14.4.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 109/22
(Case T-54/12)
2012/C 109/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Cordoba, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2011 in case R 986/2010-4;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
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 black and white ‘SPORT’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7490113
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 302008015437 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 982235 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) did not take into consideration the fact that, as a consequence of the identity in the goods at issue the differences between the marks are attenuated; (ii) made an incorrect assessment of the mark applied for, taking the view that there was no chance that the figurative element might be perceived by the public as a representation of the letter K; (iii) incorrectly presumed that being the word ‘SPORT’ understood in all the relevant territories, it should be omitted in the comparative analysis, (iv) erred in making the comparison of the signs; and (v) there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks even if the word ‘SPORT’ may have a weak distinctive character.