CELEX: 62013TN0684
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-684/13: Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)

22.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 52/41
            
         Action brought on 23 December 2013 — Copernicus-Trademarks v OHIM — Bolloré (BLUECO)
   (Case T-684/13)
   2014/C 52/78
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Copernicus-Trademarks Ltd (Borehamwood, United Kingdom) (represented by: L. Pechan and S. Körber, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bolloré SA (Érgue Gaberic, France)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims 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 8 October 2013 in Case R 2029/2012-1 and alter it to the effect that the appeal is well founded and the opposition is therefore to be rejected in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM and Bolloré SA, should the latter intervene in these proceedings, to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘BLUECO’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark application No 9 724 675
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bolloré SA
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUECAR’ for goods in Class 12 — Community trade mark No 4 597 621
   
      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