This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62014TN0526
Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
Case T-526/14: Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
OJ C 303, 8.9.2014, p. 52–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
8.9.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 303/52 |
Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)
(Case T-526/14)
2014/C 303/61
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)
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 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59 404
Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009