CELEX: 62013TN0604
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Case T-604/13: Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)

25.1.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/32
            
         Action brought on 20 November 2013 — Levi Strauss v OHIM — L&O Hunting Group (101)
   (Case T-604/13)
   2014/C 24/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Levi Strauss & Co. (San Francisco, United States) (represented by: V. von Bomhard and J. Schmitt, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: L&O Hunting Group GmbH (Isny im Allgäu, Germany)
   
      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 6 September 2013 given in Case R 1538/2012-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant and the intervener, in case it was to intervene.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘101’ for goods in Classes 13, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 9 446 634
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 26 708 of the word mark ‘501’ for goods in Classes 16, 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR.