CELEX: C2007/140/45
Language: en
Date: 2007-06-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-109/07: Action brought on 11 April 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)

23.6.2007   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 140/25
            
         Action brought on 11 April 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)
   (Case T-109/07)
   (2007/C 140/45)
   Language in which the application was lodged: 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) (OHIM)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monople NV (Spa, Belgium)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM given on 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4);
            
         
               —
            
            
               The defendant and, where appropriate the intervener, to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPA THERAPY’ for goods in Class 3 — application No 1 975 283
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Benelux word mark ‘SPA’ for goods in Class 3
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the disputed goods
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the signs at issue are similar and in that, according to the applicant, there is no likelihood of confusion in the present case
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)