CELEX: 62012TN0379
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-379/12: Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)

17.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 355/28
            
         Action brought on 21 August 2012 — Electric Bike World v OHIM — Brunswick (LIFECYCLE)
   (Case T-379/12)
   2012/C 355/61
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Electric Bike World Ltd (Southampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Brunswick Corp. (Lake Forest, United States)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 May 2012 in case R 2308/2011-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Office and the other party to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’ for goods in classes 12, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 8546401
   
      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: Spanish trade mark registration No 1271758 of the word mark ‘LIFECYCLE’, for goods in class 28
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision to the extent that it rejected the opposition for goods in class 12; rejected the CTM application for these goods; and dismissed the appeal for the remaining goods in class 12
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009.