This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0507
Case T-507/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
Case T-507/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
Case T-507/11: Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
OJ C 362, 10.12.2011, p. 18–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
10.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 362/18 |
Action brought on 26 September 2011 — Peek & Cloppenburg v OHIM — Peek & Cloppenburg (Peek & Cloppenburg)
(Case T-507/11)
2011/C 362/26
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: S. Abrar, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 February 2011 in Case R 262/2005-1; |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ for services in Class 35
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peek & Cloppenburg
Mark or sign cited in opposition: another earlier sign, namely the company name ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’, which is valid in Germany
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the use of the subsequent mark ‘Peek & Cloppenburg’ may not be prohibited and there is no right to prohibit use throughout Germany under Paragraph 12 of the Markengesetz (Law on Trade Marks), and infringement of the first part of the first sentence of Article 76(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal should have waited for a decision of the German Federal Court of Justice and the res judicata of a judgment in the German proceedings to have the trade mark removed from the register.