CELEX: 62011TN0662
Language: en
Date: 2011-12-28 00:00:00
Title: Case T-662/11: Action brought on 28 December 2011 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless)

18.2.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 49/32
            
         Action brought on 28 December 2011 — Müller v OHIM — Loncar (Sunless)
   (Case T-662/11)
   2012/C 49/58
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Thomas Müller (Gütersloh, Germany) (represented by: J. Schmidt, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loncar, SL (Sabadell (Barcelona), Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 September 2011 in Case R 2508/2010-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thomas Müller
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘Sunless’, for goods in Classes 6, 19, 22 and 24.
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Loncar, SL
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word marks ‘SUNLESS’ and ‘LONCAR-SUNLESS’ for goods in Classes 22, 23 and 24 and ropes, string, nets, tents, awnings, tarpaulins, sails, sacks and bags (not included in other classes); padding and stuffing materials (except of rubber or plastics); raw fibrous textile materials.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.