This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0660
Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
SL C 65, 3.3.2012, p. 15–16
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.3.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 65/15 |
Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
(Case T-660/11)
2012/C 65/29
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States)
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 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant 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 ‘POLYTETRAFLON’, for goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 6131015
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: Community trade mark registration No 432120 of the word mark ‘TEFLON’, for amongst others, goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15(1), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark and that genuine use for the earlier mark was proven.