CELEX: 62012TN0374
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-374/12: Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)

10.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 343/16
            
         Action brought on 20 August 2012 — Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck v OHIM — Beverage Trademark (KASTEEL)
   (Case T-374/12)
   2012/C 343/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Brouwerij Van Honsebrouck (Ingelmunster, Belgium) (represented by: P. Maeyaert, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM (Tortola, British Virgin Islands)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 June 2012 in Case R 2551/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM and Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The international figurative mark incorporating the word element ‘KASTEEL’ for goods in Class 32 — International registration No W 975 635
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Beverage Trademark Co. Ltd BTM
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark ‘CASTEL BEER’ for goods in Class 32
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Breach of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Breach of Article 42 of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.