This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/261/50
Case T-246/06: Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
Case T-246/06: Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
Case T-246/06: Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
JO C 261, 28.10.2006, pp. 26–27
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 28/10/2006; data publicării
- Author:
- Tribunalul de Primă Instanţă
- Form:
- Informații juridice
- Link
- Link
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Link
|
28.10.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 261/26 |
Action brought on 8 September 2006 — Redcats v OHIM — Revert & Cía (REVERIE)
(Case T-246/06)
(2006/C 261/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Redcats SA (Roubaix, France) (represented by: A. Bertrand, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Revert y Cia SA (Onteniente, Spain)
Form of order sought
|
— |
[…] Thus the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the OHIM must be reversed. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘REVERIE’ for goods in classes 16, 20 and 24 — application No 2 146 447
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Manuel Revert y Cía., SA
Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative mark ‘REVERT’ for goods and services in classes 24, 25 and 39
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation to the contested goods in class 24
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: The conflicting trade marks have no similarities from a visual, phonetic and conceptual point of view for Spanish, French or English speaking consumers. The fact that the earlier trade mark and the trade mark applied for cover the same products does therefore not create a risk of confusion in the mind of the public.
