Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/31 |

---

Action brought on 7 September 2010 — Brighton Collectibles v OHIM — Felmar (BRIGHTON)

(Case T-403/10)

()

2010/C 328/54

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Brighton Collectibles, Inc. (City of Industry, USA) (represented by: R. Delorey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Felmar (Paris, France)

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 30 June 2010 in case R 408/2009-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul all costs orders made against the applicant by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs); and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay 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 word mark ‘BRIGHTON’, for goods in class 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: Non-registered word and figurative trade marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and ‘Brighton’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and Italy in respect of belts; well-known word and figurative trade marks ‘BRIGHTON’ and ‘Brighton’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and Italy in respect of leather goods, hats, jewellery and watches

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in law, in finding that the earlier rights on which the opposition was based not to have been substantiated; infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal incorrectly excluded likelihood of confusion.

---

[Top](#document1)