This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0604
Case T-604/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
Case T-604/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
Case T-604/11: Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
IO C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 31–31
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
4.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/31 |
Action brought on 28 November 2011 — Mega Brands v OHIM — Diset (MAGNEXT)
(Case T-604/11)
2012/C 32/64
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Mega Brands International, Luxembourg, Zweigniederlassung Zug (Zug, Suisse) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Diset, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in case R 1695/2010-4 and reject the opposition No B 1383639; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘MAGNEXT’, for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark application No 6588991
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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2550099 of the word mark ‘MAGNET 4’, for goods in class 28; Community trade mark registration No 3840121 of the figurative mark in blue and white ‘Diset Magnetics’, for goods and services in classes 16, 28 and 41
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 erred in its appreciation of the likelihood of confusion between the opposed mark and the applied mark.