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 62014TN0201

Case T-201/14: Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

IO C 235, 21.7.2014, pp. 19–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
26/03/2014
Date lodged:
26/03/2014
Author:
Cúirt Ghinearálta
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
Authentic language:
Béarla
Link
Select all documents mentioning this document
Instruments cited in case law:
Link

21.7.2014   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/19

Action brought on 26 March 2014 — The Body Shop International v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA WISDOM)

(Case T-201/14)

2014/C 235/26

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: The Body Shop International plc (Littlehampton, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Vernimme, H. Viaene, S. Vandewynckel and D. Gillet, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium)

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 (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 January 2014 given in Case R 1516/2012-4;

—

Order the defendant, and, if necessary, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The wordmark ‘SPA WISDOM’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8 9 00  748

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: The Benelux trademarks Nos 3 89  230, 4 99  046, 3 72  307 for the word mark ‘SPA’ and the Benelux trademark No 6 93  395 for the word mark ‘LES THERMES DE SPA’

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) CTMR

Top