Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.1.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |

---

Action brought on 4 November 2011 — Gitana v OHIM — Rosenruist (GITANA)

(Case T-569/11)

2012/C 6/41

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Gitana SA (Pregny-Chambésy, Switzerland) (represented by: F. Benech, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Rosenruist — Gestão e serviços, Lda (Funchal, Madeira)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 August 2011 in case R 1825/2007-1, and authorise the registration of the Community trade mark application ‘GITANA’ No 3063344 for all the goods in classes 18 and 25; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GITANA’, for goods and services in classes 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 34 to 36 and 38 — Community trade mark application No 3063344

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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1609312 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No W00555706 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25; Italian trade mark registration No 531768 of the figurative mark ‘KITANA’, for goods in classes 18 and 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and dismissed the appeal for the remaining

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

---

[Top](#document1)