Action brought on 17 September 2010 - Václav Hrbek trading as BODY-HF v OHMI - The Outdoor Group (ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT)

(Case T-434/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Václav Hrbek trading as BODY-HF (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: C. Jäger, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Outdoor Group Ltd (Northampton, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2010 in case R 1441/2009-2;

Order the defendant to reject opposition No B1276692 and to allow the application No 5779351 for registration in its entirety;

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division, should it become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark "ALPINE PRO SPORTSWEAR & EQUIPMENT", for goods in classes 18, 24, 25 and 28 - Community trade mark application No 5779351

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: Community trade mark registration No 2165017 of the figurative mark "alpine", for goods in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 65(2) and 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misused its power by the ruling of the contested decision as it lacks objectivity and legal basis, and erroneously applied the criteria to establish a likelihood of confusion between the earlier trademark and the contested trademark.

____________