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 62010TN0559

Case T-559/10: Action brought on 7 December 2010 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)

IO C 38, 5.2.2011, p. 16–16 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

5.2.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/16

Action brought on 7 December 2010 — Laboratoire Garnier v OHIM (natural beauty)

(Case T-559/10)

2011/C 38/30

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France) (represented by: R. Dissmann and A. Steegmann, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 971/2010-1;

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘natural beauty’ for goods in class 3 — Community trade mark application No 8294233

Decision of the Examiner: Refused the application for a Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of articles 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, according to article 65 (2) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly came to the conclusion that these absolute grounds of refusal apply to the contested trade mark.

Top