Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/25 |

---

Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Run2Day Franchise v OHIM — Runners Point (Run2)

(Case T-64/11)

2011/C 89/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Run2Day Franchise BV (Utrecht, Netherlands) (represented by: H.J. Koenraad, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Runners Point Warenhandels GmbH (Recklinghausen, Germany)

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 11 November 2010 in case R 349/2010-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant, and if applicable the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to bear 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 ‘Run2’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6517502

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3800448 of the word mark ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35; Community trade mark registration No 3832458 of the figurative mark in colours ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 35; Benelux trade mark registration No 811897 of the figurative mark in colours ‘RUN2DAY’, for goods and services in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and 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)