CELEX: 62007TA0109
Language: en
Date: 2009-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-109/07: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY — Earlier national word mark SPA — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

16.5.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/33
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 25 March 2009 — L’Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)
   (Case T-109/07) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   2009/C 113/68
   Language of the case: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.