CELEX: C2005/296/62
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T -342/05: Action brought on  14 September 2005  — Henkel v OHIM

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/28
            
         Action brought on 14 September 2005 — Henkel v OHIM
   (Case T -342/05)
   (2005/C 296/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Henkel KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Serra Y Roca S.A. (Barcelona, Spain)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 14 July 2005 in the appeal proceedings R 0556/2003-1 regarding the application for Community trade mark No 1 284 470, served on 19 July 2005;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: SERRA Y ROCA, S.A.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘COR’ for goods in Class 3 — application No 1 284 470
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national mark ‘Dor’ for goods in Classes 3, 5 and 21
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in respect of the goods ‘scouring and abrasive preparations; soaps’ in Class 3
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because of likelihood of confusion of the marks in question due to visual and aural similarity. In addition the applicant's mark has above average distinctive character due to intensive use.