This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/249/33
Case T-220/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)
Case T-220/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)
Case T-220/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)
OJ C 249, 14.10.2006, p. 14–14
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
14.10.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 249/14 |
Action brought on 16 August 2006 — JAKO-O v OHIM — P.I. Fashion (JAKO-O)
(Case T-220/06)
(2006/C 249/33)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: JAKO-O Möbel und Spielmittel für die junge Familie GmbH (Bad Rodach, Germany) (represented by: E. Bertram, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: P.I. Fashion B.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment of the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 14 June 2006 (Case R 1178/2005-2) of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market; |
|
— |
rejection of the opposition No B 553695 against CTM application No 2395564; |
|
— |
order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘JAKO-O’ for goods and services in classes 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 39 and 41 (soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics) — application No 2395564.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: P.I. Fashion B.V.
Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘LAGERFELD JAKO’ for goods and services in Class 3.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for the contested goods.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.
The applicant argues that there is no similarity between the earlier right and the community trademark application either phonetically, visually or conceptually and therefore, no likelihood of confusion in the sense of the above-mentioned article. The likelihood of confusion is further reduced, according to the applicant, by the fame attributed to the element LAGERFELD by the average consumer, which is to be regarded as the dominant element of the mark.