This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0090
Case T-90/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
Case T-90/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
Case T-90/13: Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
SL C 123, 27.4.2013, p. 17–18
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
27.4.2013 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 123/17 |
Action brought on 12 February 2013 — Herdade de S. Tiago II/OHIM — Polo/Lauren (V)
(Case T-90/13)
2013/C 123/29
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Herdade de S. Tiago II-Sociedade Agrícola, SA (Lisboa, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J. Pimenta, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Polo/Lauren Company, LP (New York, United States)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
Grant the appeal and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 28 November 2012 in Case R 1436/2010-2; |
|
— |
Order the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal proceedings before the General Court, including those of the appellant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a polo player on horseback and the word element ‘V’ for goods and services in classes 3, 18, 25, 28, 41 and 43 — Community trade mark application 5 791 835
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration, UK trade mark registration and Benelux trade mark registration of the figurative mark representing a polo player for goods in classes 9, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25 et 28
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.