CELEX: 62013TN0265
Language: en
Date: 2013-05-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-265/13: Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)

20.7.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 207/44
            
         Action brought on 20 May 2013 — Polo/Lauren/OHIM — FreshSide (Representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet)
   (Case T-265/13)
   2013/C 207/74
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States) (represented by: S. Davies, Solicitor, J. Hill, Barrister and R. Black, Solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: FreshSide Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the Second Board of Appeal’s decision of 1 March 2013 in Case R 15/2012-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.
            
         
      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 figurative mark containing a representation of a boy on a bike holding a mallet for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 766 917
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing a representation of a polo player on a horse for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.