Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/28 |

---

Action brought on 8 August 2012 — Harper Hygienics v OHIM — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

(Case T-364/12)

2012/C 355/60

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)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 May 2012 (Case R 1135/2001-2) refusing registration of ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ as a Community trade mark for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16; |

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

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harper Hygienics

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element ‘CLEANIC Kindii’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 16

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, and national (Polish) mark No 51 732 for goods in Classes 3 and 5

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009[(1)](#ntr1-C_2012355EN.01002801-E0001) as regards establishment of the similarity of the trade marks and of the likelihood of confusion on the part of consumers, and infringement of Article 8(5) of that regulation

---

[Top](#document1)