CELEX: 62014TN0333
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-333/14: Action brought on 13 May 2014  — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)

21.7.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 235/29
            
         Action brought on 13 May 2014 — Helbrecht v OHIM — Lenci Calzature (SportEyes)
   (Case T-333/14)
   2014/C 235/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Andreas Helbrecht (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: C. König, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lenci Calzature SpA (Turchetto-Montecarlo, Italy)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 February 2014 in Case R 830/2013-5;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Lenci Calzature SpA, if it should intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SportEyes’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 7 5 04  525
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lenci Calzature SpA
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative marks including the word elements ‘EYE SPORT EYE’, ‘EYE fashion EYE’ and ‘EYE’ for goods in Class 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009