Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/49 |

---

Action brought on 19 January 2009 — Johnson & Johnson v OHIM — Simca (YourCare)

(Case T-25/09)

(2009/C 69/108)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Johnson & Johnson GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Gérard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Simca Srl (Cesano Boscone (MI), 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 6 November 2008 in case R 175/2008-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Allow the opposition and reject the trade mark application No 4 584 587 for the figurative mark ‘YourCare’; and |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘YourCare’, for goods in classes 3, 8 and 21

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

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 913 574 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in classes 3 and 5; German trade mark registration No 30 416 018 of the figurative mark ‘bebe young care’ for goods and services in classes 3, 21 and 44; German trade mark registration No 30 414 452 of the word mark ‘Young Care’ for goods in class 21.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 74(1) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account factual evidence provided by the applicant.

---

[Top](#document1)