CELEX: 62012TN0453
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-453/12: Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)

26.1.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 26/50
            
         Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)
   (Case T-453/12)
   2013/C 26/102
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2012 in case R 1119/2011-4, so as to reject the opposition in its entirety; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZOOSPORT’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8909251
   
      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 5233119 for the word mark ‘ZOOT’, for goods in classes 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4719316 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’, for goods and services in classes 25, 35, 36 and 41
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.