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 C2007/056/64

Case T-6/07: Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)

SL C 56, 10.3.2007, p. 34–34 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.3.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/34

Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)

(Case T-6/07)

(2007/C 56/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Galderma SA (Cham, Switzerland) (represented by N. Hebeis, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Tihomir Lelas

Form of order sought

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 25 October 2006 in Case R 0146/2006-4 in so far as the opposition against the goods ‘Pharmaceuticals; pharmaceutical and veterinary products and preparations for health care; soaps; cosmetics and hair lotions’ was rejected;

—

refuse Community trade mark application 003088986 NANOLAT for the goods mentioned above;

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Tihomir Lelas

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark Nanolat for goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (application No 3 088 986)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark TANNOLACT for goods in Class 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 1994, p. 1).

Top