This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62013TN0621
Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
OJ C 31, 1.2.2014, p. 14–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
1.2.2014 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 31/14 |
Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
(Case T-621/13)
2014/C 31/25
Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian
Parties
Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4; |
|
— |
order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL
Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alva Management GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.