This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/074/50
Case T-461/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — L' Oréal/OHIM
Case T-461/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — L' Oréal/OHIM
Case T-461/05: Action brought on 30 December 2005 — L' Oréal/OHIM
ĠU C 74, 25.3.2006, p. 26–27
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
25.3.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 74/26 |
Action brought on 30 December 2005 — L' Oréal/OHIM
(Case T-461/05)
(2006/C 74/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: L'Oréal S.A. (Paris, France) [represented by: X. Buffet Delmas d'Autane, lawyer]
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Revlon (Suisse) S.A. (Schlieren, Switzerland)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 17 October 2005 regarding the appeal R 0806/2002-4 relating to Opposition Proceedings No B 214 694 (Community trade mark Application No 1 011 014); |
|
— |
Order for all costs incurred in relation to all proceedings in this matter (in particular, the costs of the action and the appeal) to be awarded against the OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEXI TOUCH’ for goods in class 3
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Revlon (Suisse) S.A.
Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 3 and 34
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the evidence filed by Revlon (Suisse) S.A. cannot be considered valid proof of genuine use of the word mark ‘FLEX’ during the relevant period, neither in the UK nor in France
Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation as there is no similarity between the conflicting trade marks and consequently no likelihood of confusion.