EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0034
Case T-34/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
Case T-34/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
Case T-34/12: Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
IO C 80, 17.3.2012, p. 24–24
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
17.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 80/24 |
Action brought on 25 January 2012 — Herbacin cosmetic v OHIM — Laboratoire Garnier (HERBA SHINE)
(Case T-34/12)
2012/C 80/41
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Herbacin cosmetic GmbH (Wutha-Farnroda, Germany) (represented by: J. Eberhardt, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie (Paris, France)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2011 in Case R 2255/2010-1; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Laboratoire Garnier et Cie
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘HERBA SHINE’ for goods in Class 3
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national and Community word mark and international registration ‘HERBACIN’ for goods in Class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was upheld
Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that, at the time of the first-instance opposition decision, an effective request for proof of use on the part of the applicant no longer existed; infringement of point (b) of the second sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal of OHIM erred in law in disregarding considerable export turnover under the opposing mark ‘HERBACIN’; and infringement of the first sentence of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the proof of use submitted as regards customers within the Community was incorrectly assessed.