Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TJ0487

    Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2010.
    Kureha Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
    Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN - Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Similarity of the goods - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark - Time-limits - Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 - Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark- Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009).
    Case T-487/08.

    European Court Reports 2010 II-00111*

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2010:237





    Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 June 2010 – Kureha v OHIM – Sanofi‑Aventis (KREMEZIN)

    (Case T-487/08)

    Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark KREMEZIN – Earlier international word mark KRENOSIN – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of the signs – Similarity of the goods – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Proof of existence of the earlier trade mark – Time-limits – Rules 19 and 20 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 – Proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2) and (3) of Regulation No 207/2009)

    1.                     Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark – Partial use – Effect (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 56-57)

    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 registered for identical or similar goods or services – Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 68-69, 90)

    Re:

    ACTION brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2008 (Case R 1631/2007‑4), concerning opposition proceedings between Sanofi-Aventis SA and Kureha Corp.

    Information relating to the case

    Applicant for the Community trade mark:

    Kureha Corp.

    Community trade mark sought:

    Word mark KREMEZIN for goods in Class 5 – Application No 2906501

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

    Sanofi-Aventis SA

    Mark or sign cited in opposition:

    International trade mark registration No 529937 of the word mark KRENOSIN for goods in Class 5

    Decision of the Opposition Division:

    Opposition upheld

    Decision of the Board of Appeal:

    Appeal dismissed


    Operative part

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Kureha Corp. to pay its own costs and those of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM);

    3.

    Orders Sanofi-Aventis SA to bear its own costs.

    Top