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 C2005/296/62

Case T -342/05: Action brought on 14 September 2005 — Henkel v OHIM

OJ C 296, 26.11.2005, p. 28–29 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

26.11.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/28

Action brought on 14 September 2005 — Henkel v OHIM

(Case T -342/05)

(2005/C 296/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant(s): Henkel KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

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

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Serra Y Roca S.A. (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 July 2005 in the appeal proceedings R 0556/2003-1 regarding the application for Community trade mark No 1 284 470, served on 19 July 2005;

—

Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: SERRA Y ROCA, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘COR’ for goods in Class 3 — application No 1 284 470

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national mark ‘Dor’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in respect of the goods ‘scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps’ in Class 3

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because of likelihood of confusion of the marks in question due to visual and aural similarity. In addition the applicant's mark has above average distinctive character due to intensive use.

Top