- 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-638/13: Action brought on 27 November 2013 — Bimbo v OHIM — Cafe' do Brasil (Caffè KIMBO GOLD MEDAL)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62013TN0638
62013TN0638
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 52/38
(Case T-638/13)
2014/C 52/73
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 787/2012-4;
—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 GOLD MEDAL’ in red, gold, white and black for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 4 037 909
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