Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.8.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 221/56 |

---

Action brought on 18 June 2010 — Olive Line International v OHIM — O. International (O·LIVE)

(Case T-273/10)

()

2010/C 221/89

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Olive Line International, S.L. (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: O. International, S.r.l (Spoleto, Italy)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 April 2010 in case R 4/2009-4; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case. |

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 ‘O·LIVE’, for goods and services in classes 3 and 44 — Community trade mark application No 5715008

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 5086657 of the figurative mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2741533 of the figurative mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in classes 3, 29 and 30; Spanish trade mark registration No 2525564 of the word mark ‘Olive Line’, for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was not a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.

---

[Top](#document1)