CELEX: 62009TN0473
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-473/09: Action brought on 26 November 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)

30.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/64
            
         Action brought on 26 November 2009 — Matkompaniet v OHIM — DF World of Spices (KATOZ)
   (Case T-473/09)
   2010/C 24/113
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Matkompaniet AB (Borås, Sweden) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: DF World of Spices GmbH (Dissen, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 September 2009 in case R 1023/2008-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “KATOZ”, for goods in classes 29 and 30
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “KATTUS”, for goods in classes 29 and 30
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.