CELEX: C2006/237/24
Language: en
Date: 2006-09-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-221/06: Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI — Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)

30.9.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 237/13
            
         Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI — Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)
   (Case T-221/06)
   (2006/C 237/24)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Hipp & Co (Kommanditgesellschaft) (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L. (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2 June 2006 (Case No R571/2005-1),
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark ‘BEBIMIL’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Laboratorios Ordesa S.L.
   
      Mark or sign cited: Community and national word mark ‘BLEMIL’ for goods in classes 5 and 29, 6 and 32 respectively.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94. In support of his claims, the applicant puts forward the dissimilarity of the two marks with regards to the relevant consumer circles, as well as the phonetic, visual and conceptual differences between the earlier mark and the contested one.