CELEX: C2005/132/45
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-28 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2005 in Case T-112/03 L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for word mark FLEXI AIR — Earlier word mark FLEX — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Request for proof of genuine use — Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(2)(a)(ii) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

28.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 132/25
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 16 March 2005
   in Case T-112/03 L'Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for word mark FLEXI AIR - Earlier word mark FLEX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Request for proof of genuine use - Article 8(1)(b), Article 8(2)(a)(ii) and Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 132/45)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-112/03: L'Oréal SA, established in Paris (France), represented X. Buffet Delmas d'Autane, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: B. Filtenborg, S. Laitinen and G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM having been Revlon (Suisse) SA, established in Schlieren (Switzerland) — action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 January 2003 (Case R 396/2001-4) relating to opposition proceedings between L'Oréal SA and Revlon (Suisse) SA — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and I. Pelikánová, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 16 March 2005, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the application;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 135 of 7.6.2003.