Action brought on 25 November 2013 – Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM – Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.)

(Case T-607/13)

Language in which the application was lodged: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liec

Community trade mark

“42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU T

ECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol”;order the defendant and the other party to the pro

ceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.Pleas in law and main argumentsApplicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná Di

stilleriesCommunity trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.”Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. LtdMark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element “42 BELOW”Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposit

ion of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753

550 against the application for the Community trade mark “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol”;order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.Pleas in law and main argumentsApplicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná DistilleriesCommunity trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.”Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. LtdMark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element “42 BELOW”Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entiretyDecision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissedPleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Co

mmunity Trade Mark Regulation