CELEX: 62014TN0166
Language: en
Date: 2014-03-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-166/14: Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)

12.5.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 142/45
            
         Action brought on 3 March 2014 — PRS Mediterranean v OHIM — Reynolds Presto Products (NEOWEB)
   (Case T-166/14)
   2014/C 142/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: PRS Mediterranean Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel) (represented by: A. Späth and V. Töbelmann, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Reynolds Presto Products, Inc. (Richmond, United States)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 November 2013 given in Joined Cases R 889/2012-2 and R 635/2012-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEOWEB’ for goods in Class 19 — Community trade mark application No 6 184 568
   
      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: Various national trademarks of the word mark ‘GEOWEB’ for goods in Classes 1, 17 and 19 and the non-registered mark ‘GEOWEB’ used in the course of trade in all Member States of the European Union
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal proceedings
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(3), 8(4) and 8(5) CTMR.