CELEX: C2006/154/46
Language: en
Date: 2006-07-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-116/06: Action brought on  13 April 2006  — Oakley v OHIM

1.7.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 154/17
            
         Action brought on 13 April 2006 — Oakley v OHIM
   (Case T-116/06)
   (2006/C 154/46)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Oakley, Inc. (Foothill Ranch, USA) (represented by: Michaela Huth-Dierig, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Venticinque Ltd (Hailsham, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of January 17, 2006 in appeal R 682/2004-1 to be annulled.
            
         
               —
            
            
               The defendant to be ordered to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘O STORE’ for services in class 35 — Community trade mark No 2 074 599
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Venticinque Limited
   
      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national word mark ‘THE O STORE’ for goods and services in classes 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of both the applicant's and Venticinque Ltd's appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the goods and services are absolutely dissimilar and there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks since the distinctive character of the earlier mark ‘THE O STORE’ is very limited. Furthermore, proof has not been provided that ‘THE O STORE’ is in any way known or well established in the French market.