CELEX: 62012TN0388
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-388/12: Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)

27.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/28
            
         
      Action brought on 30 August 2012 — Singer v OHIM — Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö (CORDIO)
      (Case T-388/12)
      (2012/C 331/54)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Daniela Singer (Obertrubach, Germany) (represented by: B. Korom, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt (Budapest, Hungary)
      
         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 10 July 2012 in Case R 1842/2011-2
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
      
         Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘CORDIO’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 115 262
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Cordia Magyarország Ingatlanforgalmazó Zártkörüen Müködö rt
      
         Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CORDIA’ for services in Classes 36, 37 and 42
      
         Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
      
         Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
      
         Pleas in law: There is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.