- 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-581/13: Action brought on 4 November 2013 — Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0581
62013TN0581
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 24/26
(Case T-581/13)
2014/C 24/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: The Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Maitland-Walker, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 July 2013 given in Case R 1374/2012-2;
—Award the applicant the costs of the present proceedings and those incurred before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘Royal County of Berkshire POLO CLUB’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 642 621
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 registrations Nos 8 456 469, 5 482 484, 532 895 and 364 257
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.