Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 – Phildar v OHIM – Comercial Jacinto Parera
(FILDOR)**

**(Case T-99/06)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for the Community word mark FILDOR – Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR – Earlier national word mark FILDOR – Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR – Relative ground for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

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 registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 68-85)

**Re:**

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
|  | ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‑2) relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA. |

**Information relating to the case**

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark FILDOR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 – Application No 831834 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Phildar SA |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National and international word and figurative marks FILDOR and PHILDAR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition upheld |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision |

**Operative part**

The Court:

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. |  | Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004‑2); |

|  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. |  | Orders OHIM to pay the costs. |

[Top](#document1)