CELEX: 62013TN0014
Language: en
Date: 2013-01-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-14/13: Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)

23.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/19
            
         Action brought on 3 January 2013 — Seal Trademarks/OHIM — Exel Composites (XCEL)
   (Case T-14/13)
   2013/C 86/32
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Seal Trademarks Pty Ltd (Queensland, Australia) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Exel Composites Oyj (Mäntyharju, Finland)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s Decision of 11 October 2012 or;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Subsidiarily, modify it, because it goes contrary to Articles 42, paragraphs 2 and 3, and 8, paragraph 1, letter b) of the CTMR (expressly sentencing OHIM to court fees).
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘XCEL’ for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark registration No 3 809 571
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2 996 891, Austrian trade mark registration No 149 726 and Swedish trade mark registration No 324 307 of the word mark ‘EXEL’ for goods in classes 18 and 28
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 42(2) and (3) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.