- 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-637/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0637
62013TN0637
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 52/37
(Case T-637/13)
2014/C 52/72
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: N. Fernández Fernández-Pacheco, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonization 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 partially the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 September 2013 given in Case R 1434/2012-4;
—Order the other party, should it intervene, to bear 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 containing the verbal elements ‘Caffè KIMBO’ in black, red, gold, white, light sky blue, dark sky blue, yellow and light green for goods in Classes 30, 32, and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 273 884
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registration No 291 655 for the word mark ‘BIMBO’ for goods in Class 30 and earlier well-known Spanish and Portuguese word mark ‘BIMBO’
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1), (2) and (5) CTMR