This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/056/64
Case T-6/07: Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)
Case T-6/07: Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)
Case T-6/07: Action brought on 2 January 2007 — Galderma v OHIM — Lelas (Nanolat)
ĠU 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)
- Date of document:
- 10/03/2007; Data tal-pubblikazzjoni
- Author:
- Il-Qorti tal-Prim’Istanza
- Form:
- Informazzjoni ġudizzjarja
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
|
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).
