CELEX: 62012TN0463
Language: en
Date: 2012-10-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-463/12: Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)

8.12.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 379/31
            
         Action brought on 22 October 2012 — Popp and Zech v OHIM — Müller-Boré & Partner (MB)
   (Case T-463/12)
   2012/C 379/52
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Eugen Popp (Munich, Germany) and Stefan M. Zech (Munich) (represented by: C. Rohnke and M. Jacob, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicants claim that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2012 in Case R 506/2011-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               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: the word mark ‘MB’ for services in Class 42 — Community trade mark application No 7 369 771
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Müller-Boré & Partner
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark MBP and the national and Community trade mark, including the word element ‘MB&P’, for services in Classes 35 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 42(2) and Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009