This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0034
Case T-34/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
Case T-34/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
Case T-34/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
OJ C 100, 17.4.2010, p. 46–47
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
17.4.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 100/46 |
Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)
(Case T-34/10)
2010/C 100/71
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant:‘Hairdreams’ HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Amend the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 in Case R 656/2008-4 so that the applicant’s appeal of 22 April 2008 is upheld in its entirety and that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the present action; |
|
— |
in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer it back to OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MAGIC LIGHT’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26 and 44 (Application No 5 196 597)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rüdiger Bartmann
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘MAGIC LIFE’ No 30 415 611 for goods in Class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on the ground that the Board of Appeal erred in law in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).