Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TN0295

    Case T-295/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

    OJ C 247, 27.9.2008, p. 19–19 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    27.9.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 247/19


    Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

    (Case T-295/08)

    (2008/C 247/37)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: CPS Color Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fema Farben und Putze GmbH (Ettlingen, Germany)

    Form of order sought

    Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and

    Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEMACOLOR’ for goods in class 2

    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: German trade mark registration No 2 104 061 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2; international trade mark registration No 691 406 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

    Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in law in determining that the conflicting trade marks are confusingly similar, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.


    Top