CELEX: 62012TN0258
Language: en
Date: 2012-06-12 00:00:00
Title: Case T-258/12: Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS)

21.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 217/28
            
         Action brought on 12 June 2012 — Mederer v OHIM — Katjes Fassin (SOCCER GUMS)
   (Case T-258/12)
   2012/C 217/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mederer GmbH (Fürth, Germany) (represented by: O. Ruhl and C. Sachs, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich am Rhein, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 10 April 2012 in Case R 225/2011-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Court.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SOCCER GUMS’ for goods in Class 30 — Community trade mark application No 8 629 446
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘SOCCER STAR’ for goods in Class 30
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.