CELEX: 62011TN0664
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-664/11: Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)

3.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/16
            
         Action brought on 27 December 2011 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — Royal Mediterranea (THAI SPA)
   (Case T-664/11)
   2012/C 65/31
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Spa Monopole compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and E. De Gryse, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Royal Mediterranea SA (Madrid, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   The applicant claims that the General Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 October 2011 in Case R 1976/2010-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Royal Mediterranea SA
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘THAI SPA’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 41 and 43
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Spa Monopole SA/NV.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux registrations of word marks ‘SPA’ and ‘Les Thermes de Spa’ for goods and services in Classes 32 and 42 (now Class 44).
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Board of Appeal did not accept a similarity between the ‘restaurant services (food)’ designated in Class 43 in the mark applied for and the ‘mineral water and aerated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks; syrup and other preparations to make beverages’ designated in the ‘SPA’ word mark registered in Benelux; infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that the Fourth Board of Appeal did not accept the existence of a ‘link’ between the ‘SPA’ mark in Class 32 and the ‘THAI SPA’ mark in Class 43; and infringement of the rights of the defence and of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009.