Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 31.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/25 |

---

Action brought on 1 February 2012 — Chrysamed Vertrieb v OHIM — Chrysal International (Chrysamed)

(Case T-46/12)

2012/C 98/41

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Chrysamed Vertrieb GmbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: T. Schneider, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chrysal International B.V. (Naarden, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | uphold the action, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 22 November 2011 in Case R 0064/2011-1 and reject the opposition against the application for the Community trade mark; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM or the potential intervener to pay the costs pursuant to Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Chrysamed’ for goods in Class 5 (application No 6 387 071)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Chrysal International B.V.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 645 337), the international word mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Class 1 (trade mark No 144 634) and the international figurative mark ‘CHRYSAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5 and 31 (trade mark No 877 785)

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue

---

[Top](#document1)