CELEX: 62015TN0596
Language: en
Date: 2015-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-596/15: Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Batmore Capital v. OHIM — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)

14.12.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 414/37
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2015 — Batmore Capital v. OHIM — Univers Poche (POCKETBOOK)
   (Case T-596/15)
   (2015/C 414/48)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Batmore Capital Ltd (Tortola, British Virgin Islands) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Univers Poche (Paris, France)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: International registration designating the European Union in respect of the figurative mark containing the word element ‘POCKETBOOK’ — Application for registration No 1 034 872
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 July 2015 in Case R 1952/2014-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               consider the present appeal admissible;
            
         
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision in its entirety;
            
         
               —
            
            
               register the Community part of the International trademark registration No 1 034 872;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the fees and costs incurred by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               Wrong appreciation of the similarity of the products and services;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Wrong appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the signs in conflict.