Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0280

    Case T-280/11: Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)

    IO C 238, 13.8.2011, p. 20–20 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    13.8.2011   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 238/20


    Action brought on 31 May 2011 — Ewald v OHIM — Kin Cosmetics (Keen)

    (Case T-280/11)

    2011/C 238/36

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Rita Ewald (Frauenwald, Germany) (represented by: S. Reinhardt, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kin Cosmetics, SA (Sant Feliu de Guixols, Spain)

    Form of order sought

    The applicant claims that the Court should:

    Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 March 2011 in Case R 1383/2010-1;

    Reject the opposition filed at OHIM on 24 July 2008 under No B 1359944 by KIN COSMETICS, SA against Community trade mark application No EM 006 498 621‘Keen’;

    In the alternative, in the event that the Court cannot itself reach a decision under the second head of claim, refer the case back to OHIM for a fresh decision;

    Order the defendant and KIN COSMETICS, SA, in so far as it decides to participate in the proceedings, to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Keen’ for goods and services in Classes 3 and 44 — application No 6 498 621

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Kin Cosmetics, SA

    Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Community and national word and figurative marks ‘KIN’, ‘KinBooKs’, ‘KINWORKS’ and ‘KINSTYLIUM’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 5, 35 and 44

    Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.


    Top