CELEX: 62011TN0660
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-660/11: Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)

3.3.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 65/15
            
         Action brought on 30 December 2011 — Polytetra v OHIM — EI du Pont de Nemours (POLYTETRAFLON)
   (Case T-660/11)
   2012/C 65/29
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Polytetra GmbH (Mönchengladbach, Germany) (represented by: R. Schiffer, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EI du Pont de Nemours and Company (Wilmington, United States)
   
      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 29 September 2011 in case R 2005/2010-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLYTETRAFLON’, for goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40 — Community trade mark application No 6131015
   
      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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 432120 of the word mark ‘TEFLON’, for amongst others, goods and services in classes 1, 11, 17 and 40
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark application
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 15(1), 42(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, insofar as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that there was a likelihood of confusion between the mark applied for and the earlier mark and that genuine use for the earlier mark was proven.