CELEX: 62014TN0123
Language: en
Date: 2014-02-17 00:00:00
Title: Case T-123/14: Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)

28.4.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 129/34
            
         Action brought on 17 February 2014 — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM — Arçelik (AquaPerfect)
   (Case T-123/14)
   2014/C 129/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arçelik AS (Istanbul, Turkey)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 December 2013 given in Case R 314/2013-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      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 ‘AquaPerfect’ for the goods in Class 7 — Community trade mark application No 10 330 454
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 9 444 118 of the word mark ‘waterPerfect’ for goods in Class 7
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partly upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.