This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0054
Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
Case T-54/12: Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
IO C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 22–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.4.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 109/22 |
Action brought on 8 February 2012 — K2 Sports Europe v OHIM — Karhu Sport Iberica (SPORT)
(Case T-54/12)
2012/C 109/47
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: K2 Sports Europe GmbH (Penzberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Güell Serra, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Karhu Sport Iberica, SL (Cordoba, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 November 2011 in case R 986/2010-4; |
|
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
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 figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORT’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7490113
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German trade mark registration No 302008015437 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28; International trade mark registration No 982235 of the word mark ‘K2 SPORTS’, for goods in classes 18, 25 and 28
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 Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal: (i) did not take into consideration the fact that, as a consequence of the identity in the goods at issue the differences between the marks are attenuated; (ii) made an incorrect assessment of the mark applied for, taking the view that there was no chance that the figurative element might be perceived by the public as a representation of the letter K; (iii) incorrectly presumed that being the word ‘SPORT’ understood in all the relevant territories, it should be omitted in the comparative analysis, (iv) erred in making the comparison of the signs; and (v) there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks even if the word ‘SPORT’ may have a weak distinctive character.