Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/12 |

---

Action brought on 8 November 2013 — Canal + and Canal + France v OHIM — Euronews (News+)

(Case T-591/13)

2014/C 31/21

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicants: Canal + SA (Issy-Les-Moulineaux, France) and Canal + France (Issy-Les-Moulineaux) (represented by: L. Barissat, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Euronews (Ecully, France)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the General Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | rule that there is a likelihood of confusion or association within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 between the trade mark applied for, NEWS+, and the earlier French word mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667 in respect of the contested services; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | amend paragraphs 23 to 35 of the decision of the Board of Appeal dated 9 September 2013 and refuse registration of the mark NEWS+, applied for in application No 9 141 003; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | in the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 9 September 2013, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, the contested decision rejecting the opposition filed against the application for a Community trade mark NEWS+ No 9 141 003 on the basis of the earlier mark ACTU+ No 063 457 667. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Euronews

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘News+’ for services in Classes 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 9 141 003

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicants

Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark ‘ACTU+’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28, 35, 38, 39 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---

[Top](#document1)