CELEX: 62013TN0621
Language: en
Date: 2013-11-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-621/13: Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)

1.2.2014   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 31/14
            
         Action brought on 22 November 2013 — Pell Amar Cosmetics v OHIM — Alva Management (Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti)
   (Case T-621/13)
   2014/C 31/25
   Language in which the application was lodged: Romanian
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL (Băile, Romania) (represented by: E. Grecu, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alva Management GmbH (Icking, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R 388/2013-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM and Alva Management GmbH to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Pell Amar Cosmetics SRL
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the black and white figurative mark containing the word element ‘Pell amar dr. Ionescu — Calinesti’ (Community trade mark application No 10 109 981)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Alva Management GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community registration No 6 645 071, German registration No 1 161 287, and international registrations Nos 588 232 and 657 169 of the word mark ‘PERLAMAR’
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the Community trade mark concerned and the trade mark cited in opposition.