Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/25 |

---

Action brought on 22 August 2011 — Natura Selection v OHIM — Menard (natura)

(Case T-461/11)

2011/C 340/52

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Natura Selection SL (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes Coca, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ernest Menard SA (Bourseul, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | admit the present application; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | require OHIM to produce in these proceedings the evidence of reputation to which the applicant referred during the appeal procedure in Case R 2454/2010-2 and which is identified in paragraph 39 of the application; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 June 2011 in Case R 2454/2010-2 and the decision of the Opposition Division of 21 October 2010 in Case B 1072513; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | grant full registration to figurative mark No 4 713 368‘natura’, refused by opposition B 1072513 for goods in Class 20; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order OHIM to pay all the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Natura Selection

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in Classes 14, 20, 25 and 35.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ernest Menard SA.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘natura’ for goods and services in Classes 19 and 20.

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 (EC) No 207/2009,[(1)](#ntr1-C_2011340EN.01002501-E0001) given that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

---

[Top](#document1)