Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2015:141
Date: 2015-03-06
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Seventh Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Austria

Action brought on 24 April 2014 — Novomatic v OHIM — Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services (BLACK JACK TM) (Case T-257/14) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: Novomatic AG (Gumpoldskirchen, Austria) (represented by: W. Mosing, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH (Meerbusch, Germany) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 February 2014 in Case R 329/2012-4 with the consequence that OHIM will have to reject the opposition in its entirety due to lack of similarity of the goods and/or signs and lack of a likelihood of confusion and allow Community trade mark application No 9 456 278 to proceed to registration in accordance with the application; Order OHIM and — in the case of written intervention — the opposing party to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the applicant in the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and in these proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘BLACK JACK TM’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 456 278 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Berentzen Mally Marketing plus Services GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word and figurative mark ‘BLACK TRACK’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected Decision of the Board of Appeal: the Opposition Division’s decision was annulled and the trade mark application was rejected in part Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Regulation No 207/2009