Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 28.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 126/19 |

---

Action brought on 17 February 2012 — Repsol YPF v OHIM — Ajuntament de Roses (R)

(Case T-89/12)

2012/C 126/39

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: J.B. Devaureix)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ajuntament de Roses, Roses (Girona), Spain

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare the action admissible, together with all of the relevant documents and copies; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare the proposed evidence admissible; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | accept that evidence, and annul and declare inapplicable the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 December 2011 and, consequently, allow the registration of Community trade mark No 7 440 407‘R’ for the goods in Class 25 in respect of which registration was originally sought, and those in Class 35 in respect of which registration has been refused; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘R’ for goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41 (application No 7440407).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ajuntament de Roses.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark No 2593913 for goods and services in Classes 6, 9, 16, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld for some of the goods and services against which it was brought, in Classes 25 and 35, and application rejected in respect of those goods.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: action dismissed.

Pleas in law: Erroneous application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting signs.

---

[Top](#document1)