CELEX: 62013TN0012
Language: en
Date: 2013-01-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-12/13: Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden/OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)

23.3.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 86/18
            
         Action brought on 4 January 2013 — Sherwin-Williams Sweden/OHIM — Akzo Nobel Coatings International (ARTI)
   (Case T-12/13)
   2013/C 86/30
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sherwin-Williams Sweden AB (Märsta, Sweden) (represented by: L. Ström, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Akzo Nobel Coatings International BV (Arnhem, Netherlands)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal No R 2085/2011-1 dated, 18 October 2012, (confirming the decision of the Opposition Division Opposition No B 1 717 142, dated 9 August 2011);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Award the costs in favour of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ARTI’ for goods in class 2 — Community trade mark registration No 9 017 427
   
      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: Benelux trade mark registration No 753 216 and International Trade mark registration No 872 478 of the word mark ‘ARTITUDE’ for goods in class 2
   
      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.