CELEX: 62012TN0393
Language: en
Date: 2012-09-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-393/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)

17.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 355/32
            
         Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Tsujimoto v OHIM — Kenzo (KENZO)
   (Case T-393/12)
   2012/C 355/67
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Kenzo Tsujimoto (Osaka, Japan) (represented by: A. Wenninger-Lenz, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kenzo SA (Paris, France)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 May 2012 in case R 1659/2011-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods in class 33 — Community trade mark application No 6334544
   
      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 720706 for the word mark ‘KENZO’, for goods and services in classes 3, 18 and 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the CTM application in its entirety
   
      Pleas in law:
   
   
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation No 40/94.