This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0395
Case T-395/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
Case T-395/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
Case T-395/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
SL C 355, 17.11.2012, p. 32–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
17.11.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/32 |
Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
(Case T-395/12)
2012/C 355/68
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June 2012 in case R 884/2011-2; and |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Solidfloor The professional’s choice’, for goods in class 19 — Community trade mark application No 5667837
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: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2390415 of the figurative mark ‘SOLID floor’, for goods in classes 19 and 37; Trade name ‘Solid Floor Ltd’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom; Domain name ‘SOLID floor’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.