Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 274/18 |

---

Action brought on 10 July 2013 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC intimate)

(Case T-363/13)

2013/C 274/30

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: R. Rumpel, legal adviser)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clinique Laboratories LLC (New York, United States of America)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 April 2013 (Case R 606/2012-5) in so far as it refuses registration of ‘CLEANIC intimate’ as a Community trade mark for all goods in Classes 3 and 16 and for certain goods in Class 5; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | amend the contested decision by registering the trade mark for all goods and services applied for; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘CLEANIC intimate’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16 — Application No 009 217 531 for a Community trade mark

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clinique Laboratories LLC

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No 54 429 for goods in Classes 3, 14, 25 and 42 and No 2 294 429 for goods in Classes 35 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009[(1)](#ntr1-C_2013274EN.01001801-E0001) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and breach of Article 8(5) of that regulation

---

[Top](#document1)