CELEX: 62011TN0555
Language: en
Date: 2011-10-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-555/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)

7.1.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 6/21
            
         Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)
   (Case T-555/11)
   2012/C 6/38
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: tesa SE (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Schwab, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Superquimica, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘tesa TACK’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 6233506
   
      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 in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 585323 of the word mark ‘TACK’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 2515958 of the figurative mark ‘TACK Ceys’, for goods in class 16
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld 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 the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.