CELEX: 62014TN0085
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-85/14: Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)

5.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 135/48
            
         Action brought on 7 February 2014 — Infocit v OHIM — DIN (DINKOOL)
   (Case T-85/14)
   2014/C 135/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Infocit — Prestação de Serviços, Comércio e Indústria, Lda (Luanda, Angola) (represented by: A. Oliveira, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DIN — Deutsches Institut für Normung eV (Berlin, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 November 2013 given in Case R 1106/2012-2.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DINKOOL’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 11 — Community trade mark application No 9 768 061
   
      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: International trade mark registration No 229 048 of the figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘DIN’ for goods in Classes 1 to 34 and an earlier non-registered word mark ‘DIN’ in Germany
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Granted the appeal, annulled the contested decision and rejected the contested Community trade mark application in its entirety
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.