do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-238/10: Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)
Date: 2010-05-24
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Portugal, Switzerland, action for annulment, hides and furskins industry, leather industry, trade-mark law








C_2010209EN.01004501.xml










31.7.2010   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 209/45





Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)
(Case T-238/10)
()
2010/C 209/69
Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties


Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)

Form of order sought







—


Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office For Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2010 in case R 723/2009-2;










—


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 applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HORSE COUTURE’, for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6030399

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 379879 of the figurative mark ‘HORSE’, for goods in class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially

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 a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.