Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 73/30 |

---

Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Advance Magazine Publishers v OHIM — López Cabré (TEEN VOGUE)

(Case T-37/12)

2012/C 73/59

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eduardo López Cabré (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2011 in case R 1763/2010-4, insofar as it relates to the opposition based on the earlier mark; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEEN VOGUE’, for among others goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 5265517

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 496371 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 18; Spanish trade mark registration No 2153619 of the figurative mark ‘VOGUE moda en lluvia’, for goods in class 18; Community trade mark registration No 2082287 of the word mark ‘VOGUE’, for goods in class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43(2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 and/or of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95, as well as infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in law in finding that the opponent’s evidence ‘taken as a whole’ was sufficient to prove use of the earlier mark, and as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was likelihood of confusion between the applicant’s mark and the opposed mark.

---

[Top](#document1)