Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/22 |

---

Action brought on 5 August 2011 — Golden Balls v OHIM — Intra-Presse (GOLDEN BALLS)

(Case T-437/11)

2011/C 298/42

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Golden Balls Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Edenborough, QC, and S. Smith, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Intra-Presse (Boulogne-Billancourt, France)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 May 2011 in case R 1310/2010-1, in so far as it held that the appeal before the Board of Appeal was successful in respect of goods in class 16; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal, or alternatively, order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs occasioned by this appeal. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOLDEN BALLS’ for goods in classes 9, 21 and 24 — Community trade mark application No 6324164

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4226148 of the word mark ‘BALLON D’OR’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 25 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially accepted the opposition and the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that there is a perceived conflict between the Community trade mark application and the earlier mark.

---

[Top](#document1)