CELEX: 62013TN0078
Language: en
Date: 2013-02-07 00:00:00
Title: Case T-78/13: Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)

13.4.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 108/31
            
         Action brought on 7 February 2013 — Red Bull/OHIM — Sun Mark (BULLDOG)
   (Case T-78/13)
   2013/C 108/79
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Red Bull GmbH (Fuschl am See, Austria) (represented by: A. Renck and I. Fowler, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sun Mark Ltd (Middlesex, United Kingdom)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 November 2012 in Case R 0107/2012-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and by the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal if they join as intervener.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BULLDOG’, for goods in classes 32 and 33 — Community trade mark application No 9 215 567
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National and international trade mark registrations of the word mark ‘BULL’ and ‘RED BULL’ for goods in classes 32 and 33
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.