Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/52 |

---

Action brought on 19 October 2010 — Dorma v OHIM — Puertas Doorsa (doorsa FÁBRICA DE PUERTAS AUTOMÁTICAS)

(Case T-500/10)

()

2010/C 346/103

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.

---

[Top](#document1)