Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.1.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 13/32 |

---

Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Seikoh Giken v OHIM — Seiko (SG SEIKOH GIKEN)

(Case T-519/10)

()

2011/C 13/61

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kabushiki Kaisha Seikoh Giken (Matsudo-shi, Japan) (represented by: G. Marín Raigal, P. López Ronda and G. Macias Bonilla, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha (Chuo-ku, Japan)

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 12 August 2010 in case R 1553/2009-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Reject in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of the goods in class 25; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to grant registration of the mark applied for; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of the current proceedings; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the current proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SG SEIKOH GIKEN’, for goods in classes 3, 7 and 9 — Community trade mark application No 908461

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: Community trade mark registration No 2390953 of the word mark ‘SEIKO’, for goods and services in classes 1– 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal infringes the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, hereinafter CTMR, by a misleading, incorrect interpretation and inappropriate enforcement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR and the applicable case-law.

---

[Top](#document1)