CELEX: 62014TN0526
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014  — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)

8.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 303/52
            
         Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
   (Case T-526/14)
   2014/C 303/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)
   
      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 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59  404
   
      Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009