CELEX: 62012TA0453
Language: en
Date: 2013-10-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-453/12: Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT — Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

30.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 352/15
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 16 October 2013 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (ZOOSPORT)
   (Case T-453/12) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ZOOSPORT - Earlier Community word mark ZOOT and earlier Community figurative mark SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)
   2013/C 352/28
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1119/2011-4), relating to opposition proceedings between K-2 Corp. and Zoo Sport Ltd.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Zoo Sport Ltd to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 26, 26.1.2013.