CELEX: 62012TN0155
Language: en
Date: 2012-04-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-155/12: Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Schulze v OHIM — NKL (Klassiklotterie)

9.6.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 165/31
            
         Action brought on 2 April 2012 — Schulze v OHIM — NKL (Klassiklotterie)
   (Case T-155/12)
   2012/C 165/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hans Gerd Schulze (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: K. Lodigkeit, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie (Hamburg)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 30 January 2012 (Appeal R 600/2011-4), in so far as that decision refused registration of the mark ‘Klassiklotterie’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Klassiklotterie’ for goods and services in Classes 28, 35 and 41 (Application No 8 554 354).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: NKL Nordwestdeutsche Klassenlotterie.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘NKL-Klassiklotterie’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 35 and 41 (Mark No 2 904 650).
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   
      Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.