CELEX: 62012TN0231
Language: en
Date: 2012-05-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-231/12: Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands/OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)

28.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 227/27
            
         Action brought on 30 May 2012 — Rocket Dog Brands/OHIM — Julius-K9 (JULIUS K9)
   (Case T-231/12)
   2012/C 227/47
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Rocket Dog Brands LLC (Heywood, USA) (represented by: C. Aikens, Barrister)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Julius-K9 bt (Szigetszentmiklós, Hungary)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) of 21 March 2012 (R 1124/2011-4) insofar as it rejects the Opposition in relation to all goods in class 25; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               to order the Applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Opponent
            
         
      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 ‘JULIUS K9’ for goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 8 542 201
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Two figurative marks depicting a dog, (crossed) bone(s) and the alphanumeric combination ‘K 9’ for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 (1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.