Дело C-676/13: Zoo Sport/СХВП, Определение от 15 юли 2014 г.

Текст

... . Rungg, Rechtsanwalt,

appellant,

the other parties to the proceedings being:

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),

defendant at first instance,

K ‑ 2 Corp., established in Seattle (United States),

intervener at first instance,

THE COURT (Sixth Chamber),

composed of A. Borg Barthet (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, M. Berger and S. Rodin, Judges,

Advocate General: M. Wathelet,

Registrar: A. Calot Escobar,

having decided, after hearing the Advocate General, to rule by reasoned order, in accordance with Article 181 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice,

makes the following

Grounds

Order

1. By its appeal, Zoo Sport Ltd (‘Zoo Sport’) requests the Court of Justice to vary the judgment of the General Court of the European Union in Zoo Sport v OHIM — K ‑ 2 (Zoo Sport) , T‑453/12, EU:T:2013:532 (‘the judgment under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed its action for annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 9 August 2012 (Case R 1119/2011‑4) concerning opposition proceedings between K‑2 Corp. and Zoo Sport (‘the contested decision’).

Legal context

2. Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1), which is entitled ‘Relative grounds for refusal’, provides in paragraph 1:

‘Upon opposition by the proprietor of an earlier trade mark, the trade mark applied for shall not ...