CELEX: 62014TN0255
Language: en
Date: 2014-04-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-255/14: Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)

21.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 235/24
            
         Action brought on 23 April 2014 — Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö v OHIM (APPCAMPUS)
   (Case T-255/14)
   2014/C 235/33
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Aalto-korkeakoulusäätiö (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: C. Tomás Pedro, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Partially annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 January 2014 given in Case R 713/2013-2 in the part that it confirmed the decision of rejection of protection in the European Union to the International Registration 1 1 34  485‘APPCAMPUS’ (word) regarding computer software, magnetic data carriers, recording discs, compact discs, DVD’s and other digital recording media in class 9 and technological services and research and design relating thereto, design and development of computer software in class 42;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: International Registration designating the European Union No 1 1 34  485 of the word mark ‘APPCAMPUS’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Found the trade mark applied for partially not eligible for registration
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(c), (b) and 7(2) of the Regulation No 207/2009