CELEX: 62012TN0510
Language: en
Date: 2012-11-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-510/12: Action brought on 21 November 2012 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — Sky IP International (EuroSky)

26.1.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 26/65
            
         Action brought on 21 November 2012 — Conrad Electronic v OHIM — Sky IP International (EuroSky)
   (Case T-510/12)
   2013/C 26/128
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Conrad Electronic SE (Hirschau, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2012 in Case R 1183/2011-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the appeal proceedings
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘EuroSky’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 4 539 896
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sky IP International Ltd
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word and figurative mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43 and 45
   
      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 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009