Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62013TN0400

Case T-400/13: Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

OJ C 298, 12.10.2013, pp. 9–10 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
OJ C 298, 12.10.2013, p. 8–8 (HR)

12.10.2013   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/9

Action brought on 5 August 2013 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)

(Case T-400/13)

2013/C 298/16

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: L’Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: M. Granado Carpenter and M. Polo Carreño, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cosmetica Cabinas, SL (El Masnou, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 6 June 2013 given in Case R 1643/2012-1;

—

Award the applicant the cost of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: Word mark ‘AINHOA’ — Community trade mark registration No 2 720 811

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The cancellation applicant relied on Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the application for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and/or 8(5), in conjunction with Article 53(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Top