CELEX: 62013TA0426
Language: en
Date: 2015-09-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-426/13: Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA) (Community trade mark — Revocation proceedings — Community word mark AINHOA — Genuine use of the mark — Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character)

23.11.2015   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 389/35
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 23 September 2015 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Cosmetica Cabinas (AINHOA)
   (Case T-426/13) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Revocation proceedings - Community word mark AINHOA - Genuine use of the mark - Article 15(1)(a) and Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Form differing in elements which do not alter the mark’s distinctive character))
   (2015/C 389/36)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: H. Granado Carpenter and M. L. Polo Carreño, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: O. Mondéjar Ortuño and A. Schifko, agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Cosmetica Cabinas SL (El Masnou, Spain) (represented by: L. Montoya Terán and J.-B. Devaureix, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 June 2013 (Case R 1642/2012-1), relating to revocation proceedings between L’Oréal and Cosmetica Cabinas SL.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders L’Oréal to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 304, 19.10.2013.