EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0077
Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
Case T-77/12: Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
OJ C 109, 14.4.2012, p. 30–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
14.4.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 109/30 |
Action brought on 16 February 2012 — Wahl v OHIM — Tenacta Group (bellissima)
(Case T-77/12)
2012/C 109/60
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Wahl GmbH (Unterkirnach, Germany) (represented by: T. Kieser, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tenacta Group SpA (Azzano S. Paolo, Italy)
Form of order sought
— |
Alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889; |
— |
in the alternative, alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 21 November 2011 so as to reject Opposition No B1560781 of 2 November 2009 to Community trade mark No 004534889 in relation to registration of the trade mark applied for in respect of goods in Class 7; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wahl GmbH.
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘bellissima’ for goods in Classes 7 and 8 (application No 8406704).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Tenacta Group SpA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘bellissima IMETEC’ for goods in Classes 9 and 11 (Community trade mark No 4534889).
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.