CELEX: 62014TN0643
Language: en
Date: 2014-09-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-643/14: Action brought on 1 September 2014  — Red Lemon Incorporation v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)

27.10.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 380/19
            
         Action brought on 1 September 2014 — Red Lemon Incorporation v OHIM — Lidl Stiftung (ABTRONIC)
   (Case T-643/14)
   2014/C 380/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Red Lemon Incorporation (Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China) (represented by: T. Wieland and S. Müller, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 May 2014 in Case R 1899/2013-1 and reject the opposition;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ABTRONIC’ for goods in Class 9 — Community trade mark application No 8 1 84  632
   
      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: the international registration of the word mark ‘TRONIC’ for goods in Class 9
   
      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.