Action brought on 31 December 2012 - Łaszkiewicz v OHIM - Capital Safety Group EMEA (PROTEKT)

(Case T -576/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Grzegorz Łaszkiewicz (Łódź, Poland) (represented by: J. Gwiazdowska, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS (Carros Cedex, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    set aside in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 24 October 2012 in Case R 700/2011-4;

-    deliver final judgment - if the state of the proceedings so allows - by allowing registration of the Community trade mark applied for (Registration No 8478331);

-    if necessary - should the state of the proceedings so allow - refer the case back for reconsideration by the Fourth Board of Appeal, in accordance with the binding criteria laid down by the Court of Justice;

-    order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in his action before the Board of Appeal and before the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

-    collect the evidence indicated in the content of the application;

-    conduct the written procedure, with Polish as the language of the case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element 'protekt' for goods in Classes 6, 7, 9, 22 and 25 - Registration No 008478331

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Capital Safety Group EMEA, SAS

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Community word mark Protecta, registered for goods in Classes 6, 7 and 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:

-    Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;

-    Breach of Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009 and of Rules 50 and 52 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95.

____________