CELEX: 62013TN0618
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-618/13: Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)

15.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 45/36
            
         Action brought on 25 November 2013 — Oracle America v OHIM — Aava Mobile (AAVA CORE)
   (Case T-618/13)
   2014/C 45/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Oracle America, Inc. (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: T. Heydn, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aava Mobile Oy (Oulu, Finland)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11September 2013 given in Case R 1369/2012-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               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 word mark ‘AAVA CORE’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 712 811
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 6 551 626 of the word mark ‘JAVA’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42 and 45; well-known trade mark ‘JAVA’ in all Member States of the European Union for goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.