Action brought on 24 February 2010 - Tempus Vade v OHIM - Palacios Serrano (AIR FORCE)

(Case T-81/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Tempus Vade, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: A. Gómez López, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Palacios Serrano (Alcobendas, Spain)

Form of order sought

Declare that the decision of 7 January 2010 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 944/2006-1 does not comply with Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark, in so far as it annuls the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM of 28 May 2008, made in opposition proceedings No B 1009607 and, accordingly, registers Community trade mark No 5.016.704 AIR FORCE in respect of goods in Class 14.

Declare that registration of the Community trade mark No 5.016.704 AIR FORCE is refused pursuant to the prohibition on registration provided for in Article 8(1)(b) and Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.

Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Juan Palacios Serrano.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark 'AIR FORCE' (application No 5.016.704) in respect of goods in Class 14.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tempus Vade, S.L.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community word mark 'TIME FORCE' (application No 395.657) in respect of goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25; and four other Community figurative marks which contain the word element 'TIME FORCE': application No 398.776 in respect of goods in Class 14, 18 and 25; application No 3.112.133 in respect of goods in Classes 3, 8, 9, 14, 18, 25, 34, 35 and 37, and applications Nos 1.998.375 and 2.553.667 in respect of goods in Class 14.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

____________