CELEX: 62013TN0296
Language: en
Date: 2013-05-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-296/13: Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)

3.8.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 226/21
            
         Action brought on 30 May 2013 — Adler Modemärkte v OHIM — Blufin (MARINE BLEU)
   (Case T-296/13)
   (2013/C 226/27)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Adler Modemärkte AG (Haibach, Germany) (represented by: J. Plate and R. Kaase, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blufin SpA (Carpi, Italy)
   
      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 3 April 2013 in Case R 386/2012-2 due to incompatibility with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      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 ‘MARINE BLEU’ for goods in Class 25 — Community trade mark application No 6 637 193
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Blufin SpA
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BLUMARINE’ for goods in Class 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was rejected
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld and the application was rejected
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94