This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0131
Case T-131/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
Case T-131/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
Case T-131/12: Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
SL C 165, 9.6.2012, 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)
|
9.6.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 165/24 |
Action brought on 23 March 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Orly International (SPARITUAL)
(Case T-131/12)
2012/C 165/41
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Orly International, Inc (Van Nuys, USA)
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 9 January 2012 in Case R 2396/2010-1; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘SPARITUAL’ for goods in Class 3 — Community trade mark applied for No 3631884
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of the word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 32 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the reputation of the word mark ‘SPA’ in Class 32 and infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in the assessment of the likelihood that unfair advantage would be taken of the repute of the mark ‘SPA’.