Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:246
Date: 2012-05-22
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Spain

Action brought on 18 June 2010 - Olive Line International v OHIM - O. International (O·LIVE) (Case T-273/10) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Olive Line International, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O. International, S.r.l (Spoleto, Italy) Form of order sought Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2010 in case R 4/2009-4; Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case. 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 figurative mark "O·LIVE", for goods and services in classes 3 and 44 - Community trade mark application No 5715008 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 5086657 of the figurative mark "Olive Line", for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2741533 of the figurative mark "Olive Line", for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2525564 of the word mark "Olive Line", for goods in class 3 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 wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks. ____________