CELEX: 62013TN0665
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-16 00:00:00
Title: Case T-665/13: Action brought on 16 December 2013 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)

1.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 61/13
            
         Action brought on 16 December 2013 — Zitro IP v OHIM — Gamepoint (SPIN BINGO)
   (Case T-665/13)
   2014/C 61/22
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl. (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gamepoint BV (The Hague, Netherlands)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2013 given in Case R 1388/2012-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and the other party, should it intervene, to bear 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 coloured figurative mark in colours containing the verbal element ‘SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 41 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 9 545 658
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘ZITRO SPIN BINGO’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 28 and 41 — Community trade mark registration No 9 058 868
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuled the contested decision and rejected the opposition
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR.