CELEX: 62015TN0250
Language: en
Date: 2015-05-21 00:00:00
Title: Case T-250/15: Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)

27.7.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 245/33
            
         Action brought on 21 May 2015 — Speciality Drinks v OHIM — William Grant (CLAN)
   (Case T-250/15)
   (2015/C 245/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Speciality Drinks Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Pritchard, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: William Grant & Sons Ltd (Dufftown, United Kingdom)
   
      Details of the proceedings before OHIM
   
   
      Applicant: Applicant
   
      Trade mark at issue: Community word mark ‘CLAN’ — Application for registration No 10 025 815
   
      Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
   
      Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 March 2015 in Case R 220/2014-1
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the contested decision and dismiss the opposition;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order that a costs award be made in the favour of the applicant and/or that the costs order of the First Board of Appeal be reversed.
            
         
      Pleas in law
   
   
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal erred in its characterisation of the level of attention of the ‘relevant consumer’ within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal failed to decide whether CLAN, when used in conjunction with MACGREGOR, was a fancy (i.e. meaningless) word to the relevant consumer or, in the alternative, was a word with a meaning they understood;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal did not assess the similarity of marks on the correct legal and/or factual basis;
            
         
               —
            
            
               The Board of Appeal did not assess the likelihood of confusion on the correct legal and/or factual basis.