CELEX: 62014TN0254
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-254/14: Action brought on 18 April 2014  — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)

24.6.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 194/31
            
         Action brought on 18 April 2014 — Warenhandelszentrum v OHIM — Baumarkt Max Bahr (NEW MAX)
   (Case T-254/14)
   2014/C 194/40
   Language of the case: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Warenhandelszentrum Ltd. (Neu-Ulm, Germany) (represented by: F. Hirschel, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 January 2014 in case R 2035/2012-1 and allow the applicant’s trade mark applied for;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark, containing the word elements ‘NEW MAX’, for goods and services in Classes 3, 5 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 1 06  474
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Baumarkt Max Bahr GmbH & Co. KG
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark, containing the word element ‘MAX’, for services in Class 35
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and complete rejection of the trade mark applied for
   
      Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue