CELEX: 62013TN0206
Language: en
Date: 2013-04-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-206/13: Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)

15.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 171/34
            
         Action brought on 8 April 2013 — Stance/OHIM — Pokarna (STANCE)
   (Case T-206/13)
   2013/C 171/63
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Stance, Inc. (San Clemente, United States) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Pokarna Ltd (Secundrabad, India)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of 1 February 2013 in Case R 885/2012-5 pertaining to the opposition based on Community trademark registration No. 005 491 329 against Community trademark application No. 008 957 516‘STANCE’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘STANCE’ for goods in class 25 — Community trade mark application 8 957 516
   
      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 of the black and white figurative mark ‘STANZA’, for goods and services in classes 25 et 35
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 65, 8(1)(b), 75, 76(1), (2) and 83 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.