Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document 62011TN0467

Case T-467/11: Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360 o SONIC ENERGY)

IO C 319, 29.10.2011, p. 23–23 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.10.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/23

Action brought on 29 August 2011 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — dm drogerie markt (360o SONIC ENERGY)

(Case T-467/11)

2011/C 319/49

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Company (New York, United States) (represented by: M. Zintler and G. Schindler, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: dm-drogerie markt GmbH & Co. KG (Karlsruhe, Germany)

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 May 2011 in case R 1094/2010-2; and

—

Reject the opposition

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘360° SONIC ENERGY’, for ‘toothbrushes’ in class 21 — Community trade mark application No 6236533

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: International trade mark registration No 842882 of the word mark ‘SONIC POWER’, for goods in classes 3 and 21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly found a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

Top