CELEX: 62010TN0200
Language: en
Date: 2010-04-29 00:00:00
Title: Case T-200/10: Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Avery Dennison Corp. v OHIM — Dennison Hesperia (AVERY DENNISON)

19.6.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 161/56
            
         
      Action brought on 29 April 2010 — Avery Dennison Corp. v OHIM — Dennison Hesperia (AVERY DENNISON)
      (Case T-200/10)
      (2010/C 161/88)
      Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Avery Dennison Corp. (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dennison Hersperia, S.A. (Torrejón de Ardoz, Spain)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul or, in the alternative, amend the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 February 2010 in case R 798/2009-2;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order OHIM to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Avery Dennison Corp.
      
         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘AVERY DENNISON’ (Application No 3 825 114) for goods and services in Classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, 24, 28, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dennison Hesperia, S.A.
      
         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark ‘DENNISON’ (No 1 996 088) for goods in Class 16.
      
         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld.
      
         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
      
         Pleas in law: Incorrect interpretation of Articles 42(2) and (3) and, in the alternative, Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/09 on the Community trade mark.