# C_2005143EN.01004002.xml

| 11.6.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/40

---

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-146/05)

(2005/C 143/76)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on by Flex Equipos de Descanso, established in Alcobendas, Madrid (Spain), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.

Recticel N.V. established in Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe (Belguim) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 February 2005 in case R 469/2004-2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 February 2005 in case R 469/2004-2;

| — | remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the Community Trade Mark Application No. 1.278.175 RENOFLEX for all the goods in classes 17 and 20; |
| --- | --- |

—

remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the Community Trade Mark Application No. 1.278.175 RENOFLEX for all the goods in classes 17 and 20;

| — | declare that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is infringing the principle of legal certainty; |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market is infringing the principle of legal certainty;

| — | order the defendant to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Recticel N.V. |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark concerned: | The word mark ‘RENOFLEX’ for goods inter alia in classes 17 and 20 (filling materials for seats, benches for vehicles, furniture ...) — application No 1 278 175 |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The applicant |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national figurative marks ‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 17 and 20 respectively (rubber, beds, mattresses, convertible furniture, desks ...) |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld for all the contested goods |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision |
| Pleas in law: | The likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark and the earlier trade marks is evident because of the similarity of the signs and the fact that the goods covered by the trade marks are partly identical, partly similar.
  The Community trade mark bears a close resemblance with the earlier trade marks, due to the fact that the word element and dominant part of the earlier trade marks, FLEX, is included in the contested Community trade mark, RENOFLEX. The addition of the word RENO does not alter the overall impression.
  The contested decision therefore entails an infringement of Article 8(1)b of Council Regulation No 40/94.
  The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market has further more infringed the principal of legal certainty. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Recticel N.V.

Community trade mark concerned:

The word mark ‘RENOFLEX’ for goods inter alia in classes 17 and 20 (filling materials for seats, benches for vehicles, furniture ...) — application No 1 278 175

inter alia

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

The national figurative marks ‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 17 and 20 respectively (rubber, beds, mattresses, convertible furniture, desks ...)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition upheld for all the contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision

Pleas in law:

The likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark and the earlier trade marks is evident because of the similarity of the signs and the fact that the goods covered by the trade marks are partly identical, partly similar.

The Community trade mark bears a close resemblance with the earlier trade marks, due to the fact that the word element and dominant part of the earlier trade marks, FLEX, is included in the contested Community trade mark, RENOFLEX. The addition of the word RENO does not alter the overall impression.

The contested decision therefore entails an infringement of Article 8(1)b of Council Regulation No 40/94.

The Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market has further more infringed the principal of legal certainty.

---