This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0467
Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)
Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)
Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)
OJ C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 23–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 319/23 |
Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)
(Case T-467/11)
2011/C 319/49
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and |
— |
Reject the opposition |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘360° SONIC ENERGY’, for ‘toothbrushes’ in class 21 — Community trade mark application No 6236533
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 in opposition: International trade mark registration No 842882 of the word mark ‘SONIC POWER’, for goods in classes 3 and 21
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.