CELEX: 62014TN0356
Language: en
Date: 2014-05-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-356/14: Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)

4.8.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 253/42
            
         Action brought on 23 May 2014 — CareAbout v OHIM — Florido Rodríquez (Kerashot)
   (Case T-356/14)
   2014/C 253/56
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: CareAbout GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt, M. Bergermann, J. Vogtmeier and A. Kramer, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Luis Florido Rodríquez (Sevilla, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 March 2014 in Case R 1569/2013-4 regarding 1., 2. and 4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to bear the costs of the proceeding before the Court including the costs of the opposition proceeding
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark Kerashot for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 21 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 6 69  571
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: José Luis Florido Rodríquez
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative mark containing the word elements ‘K KERASOL’ for goods in Class 3
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: The decision of the Opposition Division was partially annulled and the opposition partially upheld
   
      Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.