Case T-366/07: Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter & Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE BEAUTE)
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetics industry, trade-mark law

C 283/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
invalidity: The word and figurative marks
declaration of
‘TRAXDATA’ and ‘TEAM TRAXDATA’ for goods and services in
classes 9, 16, 36, 41 and 42 — Community trade marks
No 877 910, 877 779, 7 393 and 1 252 725

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ritrax Corp. Ltd

— the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be
rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision
of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006;

— the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceed-

ings;

— the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceed-

ings before the Office for Harmonisation.

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The unregistered corporate name ‘TRAXDATA FRANCE SARL’
and trade name ‘TRAXDATA’
for the following goods and
‘consultancy, delivery and sale of computer consum-
services:
ables, hardware and accessories’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the applicant's
requests for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(c) read
in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94
by finding that the applicant had not furnished proof that it
continues to make use of ‘TRAXDATA’ and by improper appli-
cation of the criteria of likelihood of confusion between the
conflicting trade marks.

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘P&G PRESTIGE
BEAUTE’ for inter alia goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Prestige Cosmetics Srl

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘prestige’ for
goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion
between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks as the
goods covered by the trade marks are dissimilar and the trade
marks clearly differ.

Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter &
Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE
BEAUTE)

(Case T-366/07)

(2007/C 283/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Dow
AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-367/07)

(2007/C 283/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United
States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prestige
Cosmetics Srl (Anzola Emilia, Italy)

Form of order sought

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom),
BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow
DOW AgroSciences
AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Dow
AgroSciences GmbH (Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences SAS
(Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins,
France), Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary),
Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy), Dow AgroSciences
Polska
(Warsaw, Poland), Dow AgroSciences
Distribution SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Iberica,
SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroSciences s.r.o.
(Prague, Czech
Republic) and Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United
States) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

z o.o.

sp.

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July

2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities