CELEX: 62013TN0418
Language: en
Date: 2013-08-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-418/13: Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)

9.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 325/33
            
         Action brought on 13 August 2013 — Richter + Frenzel GmbH v OHIM — Richter (Richter+Frenzel)
   (Case T-418/13)
   2013/C 325/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Richter + Frenzel GmbH + Co. KG (Würzburg, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:Ferdinand Richter GmbH (Pasching, Austria)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2013 (R 2001/2011-4);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Richter+Frenzel’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 17, 19, 20, 24, 25, 35, 37, 39, 41 and 42 Community trade mark application No 8 545 998
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ferdinand Richter GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘RICHTER’, the figurative mark ‘RICHTER edition’ and the non-registered mark ‘Richter’ used in the course of trade in Austria
   
      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 Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009