CELEX: 62013TN0715
Language: en
Date: 2013-12-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-715/13: Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)

15.3.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 78/13
            
         Action brought on 24 December 2013 — Lidl Stiftung v OHIM — Horno del Espinar (Castello)
   (Case T-715/13)
   2014/C 78/27
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Lidl Stiftung & Co. KG (Neckarsulm, Germany) (represented by: M. Wolter, M. Kefferpütz and A. Marx, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Horno del Espinar, SL (El Espinar, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 October 2013 given in Case R 2338/2012-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs of proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘Castello’ for goods in Classes 29, 30 et 31 — Community trade mark application No 6 819 941
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4 199 907 for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39 and Spanish trade marks for goods and services in Classes 30, 35 and 39
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 75, 79 and 8(1)(b) CTMR.