Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:22
Date: 2008-01-30
Language of the case: French
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Earlier trade mark which has a reputation
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 28 April 2006 - Japan Tobacco v OHIM - Torrefacção Camelo (figurative mark CAMELO) (Case T-128/06) Language in which the application was lodged: French Parties Applicant: Japan Tobacco Inc. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Ortiz López, S. Ferrandis González and E. Ochoa Santamaría, lawyers) 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: Torrefacção Camelo L da Form of order sought annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 February 2006 in Case R 669/2003-2 and give a judgment in which, varying that decision, it [the Court of First Instance] declares that it is necessary to apply the prohibition in Article 8(5) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation in this case and consequently, recognising the merits of the arguments presented by Japan Tobacco, decide to refuse registration of Community trade mark no. 1469121; order OHIM to pay the costs of these proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: Torrefacção Camelo L da Community trade mark concerned: Mark containing figurative elements (camel, pyramids, palm trees) and the name CAFÉ TORREFACTO CAMPO MAIOR CAMELO CAFÉ ESPECIAL PURO Torrefacção Camelo L da CAMPO MAIOR-PORTUGAL, for goods in Class 30 (application no. 1469121) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word and figurative marks 'CAMEL' for goods in Classes 22 and 34 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and also errors in the conduct of the proceedings and infringement of Articles 74 and 79 of that regulation. ____________ 1 - 2 - 3 -