Action brought on 25 November 2013 – Granette & Starorežná Distilleries v OHIM – Bacardi (42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.)
(Case T-607/13)
Language in which the application was lodged: Czech
Parties
Applicant: Granette & Starorežná Distilleries a.s. (Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic) (represented by: T. Chleboun, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Bacardi Co. Ltd (Vaduz, Liec
Community trade mark
“42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU T
ECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol”;order the defendant and the other party to the pro
ceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.Pleas in law and main argumentsApplicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná Di
stilleriesCommunity trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.”Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. LtdMark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element “42 BELOW”Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposit
ion of 16 September 2013 in Case R 1605/2012-2 so as to reject the form of order sought by the other party to the proceedings No B 1753
550 against the application for the Community trade mark “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol”;order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the applicant’s costs in the proceedings.Pleas in law and main argumentsApplicant for a Community trade mark: Granette & Starorežná DistilleriesCommunity trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word elements “42 VODKA JEMNÁ VODKA VYRÁBĚNÁ JEDINEČNOU TECHNOLOGIÍ 42% vol.”Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Bacardi Co. LtdMark or sign cited in opposition: International and national trade mark containing the word element “42 BELOW”Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entiretyDecision of the Board of Appeal:
Appeal dismissedPleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Co
mmunity Trade Mark Regulation