CELEX: 62009TN0422
Language: en
Date: 2009-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-422/09: Action brought on 19 October 2009 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHANIAS LAS ORIGINALES)

5.12.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 297/33
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2009 — São Paulo Alpargatas v OHIM — Fischer (BAHANIAS LAS ORIGINALES)
   (Case T-422/09)
   2009/C 297/51
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: São Paulo Alpargatas, SA (represented by: P. Merino Baylos, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Enrique Fischer
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               uphold the application and annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 August 2009, with all the appropriate consequences under Community law;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Enrique Fischer
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the verbal component “BAHIANAS (LAS ORIGINALES)” (Application No 5 024 591) for goods in class 25.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community figurative mark containing the verbal component “havaianas” (No 3 772 431), Spanish figurative mark containing the verbal component “havaianas” (M 2 341 904) and Spanish word mark “HAVAIANAS” (M 2 341 905), all for goods in class 25.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of the application for a Community mark in its entirety.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision.
   
      Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.