CELEX: 62010TN0342
Language: en
Date: 2010-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-342/10: Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)

23.10.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 288/49
            
         
      Action brought on 23 August 2010 — Hartmann v OHMI — Mölnlycke Health Care (MESILETTE)
      (Case T-342/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/92)
      Language in which the application was lodged: English
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by: N. Aicher, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mölnlycke Health Care AB (Göteborg, Sweden)
      
         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 20 May 2010 in case R 1222/2009-2, and;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
               
            
         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 word mark ‘MESILETTE’, for goods in class 5 — Community trade mark application No 6494025
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
      
         Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 1033551 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25; International trade mark registration No 486204 of the word mark ‘MEDINETTE’, for goods in class 25
      
         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 made an incorrect assessment of the likelihood of confusion, in particular of the similarity of the signs.