Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Mülhens v OHIM – Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)**

**(Case T-93/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

1.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see
paras 41-43)*

2.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see
para. 33)*

3.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)
and (5)) (see para. 38)*

4.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (see para. 39)*

5.                     *Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition
by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see
para. 40)*

**Re:**

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG. |

**Information relating to the case**

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark MINERAL SPA for goods in Class 3 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | Several marks containing the word SPA, registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Registration refused |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Appeal dismissed |

**Operative part**

The Court:

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. |  | Dismisses the action; |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. |  | Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)