CELEX: 62013TN0517
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-517/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández ( ‘QUO VADIS’ )

30.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 352/19
            
         Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Éditions Quo Vadis v OHIM — Gómez Hernández (‘QUO VADIS’)
   (Case T-517/13)
   2013/C 352/35
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Éditions Quo Vadis (Carquefou, France) (represented by: F. Valentin, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Francisco Gómez Hernández (Jacarilla, Spain)
   
      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 10 July 2013 given in Case R 1166/2012-4.
            
         
      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 word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 29, 33 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8 871 758
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: French trade mark No 92 422 947 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 and French trade mark No 1 257 750 for the word mark ‘QUO VADIS’ for goods in Class 16
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) CTMR.