Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62008TJ0345

Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010.
Helena Rubinstein SNC (T-345/08) and L’Oréal SA (T-357/08) v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Relative ground for refusal - Damage to reputation - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based - Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009).
Joined cases T-345/08 and T-357/08.

European Court Reports 2010 II-00279*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2010:529





Judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 – Rubinstein and L’Oréal v OHIM – Allergan (BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL)

(Joined Cases T-345/08 and T-357/08)

Community trade mark – Invalidity proceedings – Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL – Earlier national figurative and word marks BOTOX – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Duty to state reasons – Article 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009)

1.                     Community trade mark – Surrender, revocation and invalidity – Relative grounds of invalidity – Registration contrary to Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 (Council Regulation No 40/94, Arts 8(5) and 52(1)(a)) (see paras 40, 64, 79, 88)

2.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Condition – Link between the marks – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 65-66)

3.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Proof to be adduced by proprietor – Future, non-hypothetical risk of unfair advantage or damage (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 82)

4.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services – Conditions – Taking unfair advantage of the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Detriment to the distinctive character or repute of the earlier mark – Criteria for assessment (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 83-85)

5.                     Community trade mark – Procedural provisions – Statement of reasons for decisions – Aim (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 73) (see para. 92)

Re:

ACTIONS brought against, in Case T-345/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 May 2008 (Case R 863/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and Helena Rubinstein SNC, and, in Case T‑357/08, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 June 2008 (Case R 865/2007-1), relating to cancellation proceedings between Allergan, Inc. and L’Oréal SA.

Information relating to the case

Registered Community trade marks subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Community word mark No 2686392 BOTOLIST for goods in Class 3 and Community word mark No 2782282 BOTOCYL for goods in Class 3 – Community trade mark registration Nos 2686392 and 2782282

Proprietors of the Community trade marks:

Helena Rubinstein SNC and L’Oréal SA

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Allergan, Inc.

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:

Community trade mark registration No 2015832 of the figurative mark BOTOX for goods in Class 5; Community trade mark registration No 2575371 of the figurative mark BOTOX for goods in Class 5; Community trade mark registration No 1923986 of the figurative mark BOTOX for goods in Classes 5 and 16; Community trade mark registration No 1999481 of the word mark BOTOX for goods in Class 5; various national trade marks BOTOX

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Applications for a declaration of invalidity dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Decisions of the Cancellation Division annulled


Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the actions;

2.

Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC to pay the costs in Case T‑345/08;

3.

Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs in Case T‑357/08.

Top