CELEX: 62011TN0504
Language: en
Date: 2011-09-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-504/11: Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)

19.11.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 340/31
            
         Action brought on 27 September 2011 — Hartmann v OHIM — Protecsom (DIGNITUDE)
   (Case T-504/11)
   2011/C 340/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim an der Brenz, 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: Protecsom SAS (Valognes, France)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2011 in case R 1197/2010-4; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DIGNITUDE’, for goods in classes 5, 24 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 7506025
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 7436603, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in class 5; German trade mark registration No 302008076849.5/05, of the word mark ‘Dignity’, for goods in classes 5 and 10
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially 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 goods.