CELEX: 62015TN0528
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-528/15: Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)

16.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 381/48
            
         Action brought on 8 September 2015 — Bimbo v OHIM — Globo (Bimbo)
   (Case T-528/15)
   (2015/C 381/59)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Bimbo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Globo SpA Servizi Commerciali (Illasi, Italy)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Bimbo’ — Application for registration No 10 028 405
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2015 in Joined Cases R 2512/2013-4 and R 2549/2013-4
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               modify the contested decision in accordance with Article 65.3 CTMR, rejecting the CTM Application no 10 028 405 in class 28;
            
         
               —
            
            
               subsidiarity and only in the case the above claim would be rejected, annul the contested decision
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendants to pay the costs, as stated in article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court (former 87.2).
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Rule 19(1) (2) (3) and Rule 20(1) of the Regulation No 2868/95;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 64(1) of the Regulation No 207/2009 and related case-law;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 43(2) and (3) of the Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(5) of the Regulation No 207/2009.