This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62015TN0773
Case T-773/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
Case T-773/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
Case T-773/15: Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
IO C 78, 29.2.2016, pp. 31–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.2.2016 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 78/31 |
Action brought on 23 December 2015 — BBY Solutions v OHIM — Worldwide Sales Corporation España (BEST BUY)
(Case T-773/15)
(2016/C 078/42)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: BBY Solutions, Inc. (Minneapolis, United States) (represented by: A. Poulter, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Worldwide Sales Corporation España, SL (Sant Vicenç dels Horts, Spain)
Details of the proceedings before OHIM
Applicant: Applicant
Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘BEST BUY’ — Application for registration No 6 065 403
Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings
Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 October 2015 in Joined Cases R 733/2015-2 and R 780/2015-2
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 8 October 2015 in Case R-0780/2015-2 to the extent that it upheld the opposition; |
|
— |
annul the decision of the Opposition division dated 23 February 2015 in Opposition No. B 1312208 to the extent that it upheld the opposition; |
|
— |
accept the CTM Application No 006065403 for registration; |
|
— |
order the Defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of the Applicant. |
Pleas in law
|
— |
The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the dominant and distinctive elements of the marks; |
|
— |
The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the overall impression created by the marks; |
|
— |
The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly assessing the identity or similarity of the goods and services covered by the marks; and |
|
— |
The Board infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 by wrongly concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the Opponent’s earlier marks and the Applicant’s Mark. |