Action brought on 8 October 2010 - The Pukka Luggage Company v OHIM - Jesus Miguel Azpiroz Arruti (PUKKA)

(Case T-483/10)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Pukka Luggage Company Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: K. E. Gilbert and M. H. Blair, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jesús Miguel Azpiroz Arruti (San Sebastián, Spain)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 July 2010 in case R 1175/2008-4;

In the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of its finding that the opposition should succeed against "luggage";

Or in the alternative, annul the contested decision in respect of its finding that the opposition should succeed against "hard suitcases, hard trolley cases";

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their costs of the proceedings as well as those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "PUKKA", for goods in class 18 - Community trade mark application No 4061545

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 1570450 of the figurative mark "PUKAS", for goods in class 18; Community trade mark registration No 19802 of the figurative mark "PUKAS", for goods and services in classes 25, 28 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods and in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark in relation to the earlier trade mark.

____________