Action brought on 10 May 2010 - Monster Cable Products v OHIM - Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (MONSTER ROCK)

(Case T-216/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Monster Cable Products, Inc. (Brisbane, USA) (represented by: O. Günzel and W. von der Osten-Sacken, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Live Nation (Music) UK Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 February 2010 in case R 216/2009-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed;

Reject the opposition No B 754335 against Community trademark application No 3333804 "MONSTER ROCK" in its entirety; and

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "MONSTER ROCK", for goods in class 9

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: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313176 of the word mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", for goods in class 16; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313177 of the word mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", for goods in class 25; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1313178 of the word mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", for goods in class 26; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2299141 of the word mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 25, 41 and 43; trade mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", well-known (in the sense of Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention) in the old 15 Member States; unregistered trade mark "MONSTERS OF ROCK", used in the course of trade in the old 15 Member States; trade name "MONSTERS OF ROCK", used in the course of trade in the old 15 Member States

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and rejected the application 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) wrongly assessed the identity / similarity of the goods, (ii) didn't take into account the differences between the trademarks, in particular their conceptual differences, and (iii) failed to determine the scope of protection of the earlier sign.

____________