CELEX: C2006/326/142
Language: en
Date: 2006-12-30 00:00:00
Title: Case T-315/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Ercros v OHIM — Degussa (TAI CROS)

30.12.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 326/68
            
         Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Ercros v OHIM — Degussa (TAI CROS)
   (Case T-315/06)
   (2006/C 326/142)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Ercros, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: R. Thierie, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Degussa AG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               ‘purely and simply’ alter the contested decision (decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 20 September 2006 in appeal proceedings R 29/2006-1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant the opposition and reject the application for figurative mark No 2 768 851‘TAICROS’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Degussa AG.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘TAI CROS’ for goods in Class 1 (Application No 2 768 851).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word marks ‘CROS’, Spanish word mark ‘SOCIEDAD ANONIMA CROS’, Spanish figurative marks ‘CROS’ and Spanish word mark ‘ERCROS’ for goods in Class 1.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is a likelihood of confusion between the two opposing marks.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).