CELEX: 62013TN0185
Language: en
Date: 2013-03-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-185/13: Action brought on 26 March 2013 — CWP v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)

1.6.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 156/47
            
         Action brought on 26 March 2013 — CWP v OHIM — Continental Reifen Deutschland (CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS)
   (Case T-185/13)
   2013/C 156/88
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CWP LLC (Wilmington, United States of America) (represented by: O. Bischof, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH (Hanover, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 January 2013 in Case R 2204/2011-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark including the word elements ‘CONTINENTAL WIND PARTNERS’ for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 8 445 561
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Continental Reifen Deutschland GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration designating the European Union of the figurative mark including the word element ‘Continental’
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009