CELEX: 62013TN0509
Language: en
Date: 2013-09-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-509/13: Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)

23.11.2013   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 344/64
            
         Action brought on 19 September 2013 — Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs v OHIM — IIC (NORTHWOOD)
   (Case T-509/13)
   2013/C 344/118
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Ratioparts-Ersatzteile-Vertriebs GmbH (Euskirchen, Germany) (represented by: M. Koch, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH (Bern, Switzerland)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 4 July 2013 (Case R 2211/2012-2) in such a way that opposition No B17963622 is rejected in its entirety, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the opponent to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appellant to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘NORTHWOOD’ for goods and services in Classes 8, 9, 20, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 9 412 776
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: IIC — Intersport International Corp. GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international registration with protection in respect of the European Union of the mark ‘NORTHBROOK’ for goods in Classes 9, 14, 18, 20, 22, 25 and 28
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed in part
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009