CELEX: 62011TN0179
Language: en
Date: 2011-03-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-179/11: Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)

21.5.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 152/27
            
         Action brought on 18 March 2011 — Sport Eybl & Sports Experts v OHIM — Seven (SEVEN SUMMITS)
   (Case T-179/11)
   2011/C 152/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sport Eybl & Sports Experts GmbH (Wels, Austria) (represented by: S. Fürst, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Seven SpA (Leinì, Italy)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Overrule the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 January 2011 in case R 364/2010-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Fix the total amount of costs to be paid by the defendant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SEVEN SUMMITS’, in colours blue and red, for amongst others goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6307243
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3489234 of the figurative mark ‘Seven’, for goods in classes 16 and 18; Community trade mark registration No 4783866 of the figurative mark ‘7Seven’, for goods in classes 16 and 18
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly determined the existence of likelihood of confusion.