CELEX: 62009TN0437
Language: en
Date: 2009-10-19 00:00:00
Title: Case T-437/09: Action brought on 19 October 2009 — Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM — Kadabell (OYSTER COSMETICS)

16.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 11/32
            
         Action brought on 19 October 2009 — Oyster Cosmetics v OHIM — Kadabell (OYSTER COSMETICS)
   (Case T-437/09)
   2010/C 11/60
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Oyster Cosmetics SpA (Castiglione delle Stiviere, Italy) (represented by: A. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kadabell GmbH & Co. KG (Lenzkirch, Germany)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2009 in case R 1367/2008-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the adverse parties to bear the costs of the present proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “OYSTER COSMETICS”, for goods in class 3
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark “KADUS OYSTRA AUTO STOP PROTECTION” for goods in class 3
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition partially
   
      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 wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.