CELEX: 62011TN0636
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-636/11: Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)

3.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/13
            
         Action brought on 5 December 2011 — Hostel Drap v OHIM — Aznar textil (MY drap)
   (Case T-636/11)
   2012/C 65/26
   Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Hostel Drap, SL (Monistrol de Montserrat, Spain) (represented by: C. Prat, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aznar textil, SL (Paterna, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 26 September 2011 in Case R 2127/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               reject the opposition;
            
         
               —
            
            
               refer the case back to the OHIM for it to register the mark applied for in all the classes in respect of which registration is sought;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘MY drap’ for goods in Classes 16, 21 and 24
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aznar textil, SL
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘BON DRAP’ for goods in Classes 23, 24 and 26, which is well known in the Community
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since the conflicting marks are not similar and there is no likelihood of confusion.