CELEX: 62014TN0536
Language: en
Date: 2014-07-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-536/14: Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)

29.9.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 339/20
            
         Action brought on 16 July 2014 — Sheraton International IP v OHIM — Staywell Hospitality Group (PARK REGIS)
   (Case T-536/14)
   2014/C 339/24
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sheraton International IP LLC (Stamford, United States) (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: Staywell Hospitality Group Pty Ltd (Sydney, Australia)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2014 given in joined Cases R 240/2013-5 and R 303/2013-5;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal elements ‘PARK REGIS’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 43 — Community trade mark application No 9 4 88  933
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: CTM registrations, International trade mark registrations and well-known mark ‘ST REGIS’
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.