This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/283/62
Case T-366/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
Case T-366/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
Case T-366/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
OJ C 283, 24.11.2007, p. 34–34
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
24.11.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 283/34 |
Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
(Case T-366/07)
(2007/C 283/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prestige Cosmetics Srl (Anzola Emilia, Italy)
Form of order sought
|
— |
The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July 2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled; |
|
— |
the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006; |
|
— |
the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings; |
|
— |
the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE’ for inter alia goods in class 3
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Prestige Cosmetics Srl
Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘prestige’ for goods in class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks as the goods covered by the trade marks are dissimilar and the trade marks clearly differ.