CELEX: 62010TN0238
Language: en
Date: 2010-05-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-238/10: Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)

31.7.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 209/45
            
         Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)
   (Case T-238/10)
   ()
   2010/C 209/69
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)
   
      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 5 March 2010 in case R 723/2009-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HORSE COUTURE’, for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6030399
   
      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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 379879 of the figurative mark ‘HORSE’, for goods in class 18
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.