CELEX: 62015TN0700
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-700/15: Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)

1.2.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 38/71
            
         Action brought on 30 November 2015 — Volfas Engelman v OHIM — Rauch Fruchtsäfte (BRAVORO PINTA)
   (Case T-700/15)
   (2016/C 038/96)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Volfas Engelman AB (Kaunas, Lithuania) (represented by: P. Olson, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rauch Fruchtsäfte GmbH (Rankweil, Austria)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BRAVORO PINTA’ — Application for registration No 10 725 381
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 September 2015 in Case R 1649/2014-2
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and allow registration of the CTM 1072538 and;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to bear the costs.
            
         
      Plea in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in identifying the relevant public;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in holding that the relevant public will display an average level of attention;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred by ignoring the significant visual elements of the applied for mark;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred by finding phonetic similarity between the marks;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in basing the decision on finding that the earlier enjoys enhanced distinctiveness for energy drinks in paragraph 42 of the decision;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in finding a likelihood of confusion.