EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0342
Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
OJ C 288, 23.10.2010, p. 49–49
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.10.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 288/49 |
Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
(Case T-342/10)
()
(2010/C 288/92)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2010 in case R 1222/2009-2, and; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MESILETTE’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6494025
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1033551 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 486204 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
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 made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.