Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2.7.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 194/18 |

---

Action brought on 26 April 2011 — Wall v OHIM — Bluepod Media Worldwide (bluepod media)

(Case T-227/11)

2011/C 194/30

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.

---

[Top](#document1)