Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:350
Date: 2014-06-04
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Third Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - successful
Origin: France

Action brought on 11 April 2012 - Free v OHIM - Conradi + Kaiser (FreeLounge) (Case T-161/12) Language in which the application was lodged: French Parties Applicant: Free (Paris, France) (represented by: Y. Coursin, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Conradi + Kaiser GmbH (Kleinmaischeid, Germany) Form of order sought The applicant claims that the Court should: annul in part the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 January 2012 in Case R 437/2011-2; rule that the application for registration of the disputed mark should be rejected in its entirety on the basis of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009; and order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, both before the Court and before OHIM. 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 word mark 'FreeLounge' for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 - application for registration No 8442832 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant Mark or sign cited in opposition: the French figurative mark No 99785839 'free LA LIBERTÉ N'A PAS DE PRIX' for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38; the French word mark No 1734391 'FREE' for services in Class 38; the company name 'FREE' used in the course of trade in France; the domain name 'FREE.FR' used in the course of trade Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application for the Community trade mark Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the contested decision Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 ____________