CELEX: 62013TN0519
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-519/13: Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/65
            
         Action brought on 25 September 2013 — Leder & Schuh International v OHIM — Epple (VALDASAAR)
   (Case T-519/13)
   2013/C 344/119
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Leder & Schuh International AG (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: S. Korn, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Valerie Epple (Bronnen, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal, reject the opposition and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the General Court of the European Union.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘VALDASAAR’ for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 591 249
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Valerie Epple
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘Val d’Azur’ for goods in Class 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue