Action brought on 12 July 2013 – Mocek et Wenta/OHIM – Lacoste (KAJMAN)

(Case T-364/13)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Eugenia Mocek (Chojnice, Poland) and Jadwiga Wenta (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lacoste SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

The applicants claim that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 10 May 2013 in Case R 2466/2010-4 and grant protection to the trade mark applied for for all the goods covered by the application;

Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Court, including the expenses of the applicant, as well as the necessary costs incurred by the applicant in connection with the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicants

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark claiming the colours green, white and grey containing the word element “KAJMAN” placed between the back and the head of a crocodile for goods and services in classes 18, 20, 22, 25 and 36 – Community trade mark registration No 5 686 845

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 in opposition: Community trade mark of the figurative mark in black and white presenting a crocodile and the word mark “CROCODILE” for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 20, 24, 25 and 36

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision insofar as

the opposition was rejected for certain goods in classes 18 and 25, and rejected the contested Community trade mark application for these goods

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.