CELEX: 62012TN0122
Language: en
Date: 2012-03-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-122/12: Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ActionSportGames v OHIM

9.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 165/23
            
         Action brought on 19 March 2012 — ActionSportGames v OHIM
   (Case T-122/12)
   2012/C 165/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: Danish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: ActionSportGames A/S (Humlebæk, Denmark) (represented by: W. Rebernik, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FN Herstal SA (Herstal, Belgium)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the defendant’s decision of 12 January 2012 in Case R 2096/2010-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Uphold the decision of the Opposition Division of 24 September 2010 (Case No B 1 344 904);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: ActionSportGames A/S
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SCAR’ for goods in Class 28 in Community trade mark application No 5 750 054.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: FN Herstal SA
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The non-registered Belgian word mark ‘SCAR’ for goods in Classes 13 and 28.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Division annulled and case referred back to that division.
   
      Pleas in law: The applicant claims that there is no likelihood of confusion between the disputed trade marks, since the goods at issue are fundamentally different because FN Herstal’s goods are made up of proper firearms for military use, whereas the applicant’s goods are replica and toy weapons for sport and play.