Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:375
Date: 2012-07-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Sixth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 26 April 2011 - Wall v OHIM - Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media) (Case T-227/11) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Wall AG (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bluepod Media Worldwide Ltd (London, United Kingdom) Form of order sought Partially annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 February 2011 in case R 301/2010-1; and Order the defendant to pay the costs of the 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 "bluepod media", for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 41 - Community trade mark application No 6099709 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5660972 for the figurative mark "blue spot", for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 38; International trade mark registration No 880800 for the word mark "BlueSpot", for services in classes 35, 37 and 38; German trade mark registration No 30472373 for the word mark "BlueSpot", for services in classes 35, 37 and 38 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially allowed the appeal and partially rejected the application. Correspondingly, allowed the application in the remainder and partially rejected the opposition. Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion. ____________