Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 7.5.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/27 |

---

Action brought on 17 March 2011 — Cofra v OHIM — O2 (can do)

(Case T-162/11)

2011/C 139/51

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Cofra Holding AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: K.-U. Jonas and J. Bogatz, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O2 Holdings Ltd (Slough, United Kingdom)

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 10 January 2011 in Case R 242/2009-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant and, if appropriate, the other party to the proceedings to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: O2 Holdings Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘can do’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 25, 35, 36, 38 and 43.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘CANDA’ for goods in Class 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 15 and Article 42(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009[(1)](#ntr1-C_2011139EN.01002701-E0001) and of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95,[(2)](#ntr2-C_2011139EN.01002701-E0002) in that the Board of Appeal applied criteria which are too narrow in assessing the proof of use sufficient to maintain the right and failed to have sufficient regard to the particular distribution situation in the applicant’s undertaking. Further, infringement of Article 76(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal wrongly failed to have regard to various documents submitted as proof of use sufficient to maintain the right in the opposing mark. Finally, infringement of Article 75(2) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, in that the Board of Appeal did not inform the applicant that it regarded the proof of use submitted as insufficient and did not provide the applicant with an opportunity of submitting further proof in oral proceedings.

---

[Top](#document1)