Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/30 |

---

Action brought on 20 February 2012 — Chico's Brands Investments v OHIM — Artsana (CHICO'S)

(Case T-83/12)

2012/C 118/51

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Chico's Brands Investments, Inc. (Fort Myers, United States) (represented by: T. Holman, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artsana SpA (Grandate, Italy)

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 27 October 2011 in case R 2084/2010-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay to the applicant, the applicant’s costs of and occasioned by this appeal. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CHICO’S’, for goods and services in classes 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1585579

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: Italian trade mark registration No 420865 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 846672/380042 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 763084 of the figurative mark ‘chicco’, for among others goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15(1)(a), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the opponent’s evidence proved genuine use of the earlier mark in Italy. Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that there was a likelihood of confusion between the CTM application and the earlier mark.

---

[Top](#document1)