Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:679
Date: 2011-11-16
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 19 October 2010 - Dorma v OHIM - Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS) (Case T-500/10) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Dorma GmbH & Co. KG (Ennepetal, Germany) (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: Puertas Doorsa, SL (Petrel, Spain) 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 17 August 2010 in case R 542/2009-4; and Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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 figurative mark "doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS", for goods in classes 6, 9 and 19 - Community trade mark application No 4884359 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 39525884 of the figurative mark "DORMA", for goods and services in classes 6, 9, 16, 19 and 37; United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2201691 of the word mark "DORMA" for goods in classes 6, 7, 9, 16 and 19; International trade mark registration No 722009 of the figurative trade mark "DORMA" for goods in classes 6, 7, 9, 16 and 19 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal misapplied the provisions of this article to the contested trade mark. ____________