CELEX: 62013TN0606(01)
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-606/13: Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang)

8.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 39/22
            
         Action brought on 15 November 2013 — Mustang v OHIM — Dubek (20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang)
   (Case T-606/13)
   2014/C 39/39
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Mustang — Bekleidungswerke GmbH & Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: S. Völker, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dubek Ltd (Petach Tikva, Israel)
   
      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 13 September 2013 in Case R 416/2012-4 concerning the opposition proceedings against Community trade mark application No 6 065 098;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dubek Ltd
   
      Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘20 CLASS A FILTER CIGARETTES Mustang’ for goods in Class 34 — Community trade mark application No 6 065 098
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark and figurative mark ‘MUSTANG’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was dismissed
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009