This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0537
Case T-537/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
Case T-537/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
Case T-537/11: Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
OJ C 362, 10.12.2011, p. 20–20
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 362/20 |
Action brought on 10 October 2011 — Hultafors Group v OHIM — Società Italiana Calzature (Snickers)
(Case T-537/11)
2011/C 362/30
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Hultafors Group AB (Bollebygd, Sweden) (represented by: A. Rasmussen and T. Swanstrøm, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Società Italiana Calzature SpA (Milano, Italy)
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 9 August 2011 in case R 2519/2010-4; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to bear its own as well as the third party’s costs, including those incurred during the appeal and opposition proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘Snickers’, for goods in classes 8, 9 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 3740719
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: Italian trade mark registration No 348149 of the word mark ‘KICKERS’, for goods in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 24, 25, 28, 32 and 33
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed that a risk of confusion exists between the trade mark application and the opposing trademark.