CELEX: 62011TN0102
Language: en
Date: 2011-02-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-102/11: Action brought on 22 February 2011 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)

30.4.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 130/15
            
         Action brought on 22 February 2011 — American Express Marketing & Development v OHIM (IP ZONE)
   (Case T-102/11)
   2011/C 130/27
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: American Express Marketing & Development Corp. (New York, United States) (represented by: V. Spitz, A. Gaul, T. Golda and S. Kirschstein-Freund, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               In the alternative, amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2010 in case R 1125/2010-2, and rule that the appeal is justified;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and of the proceedings before the Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘IP ZONE’ for services in class 42
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal found that the trade mark lacks the necessary distinctiveness and is descriptive with respect to the services in question.