CELEX: 62008TN0295
Language: en
Date: 2008-07-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-295/08: Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)

27.9.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 247/19
            
         Action brought on 23 July 2008 — CPS Color Group v OHIM — Fema Farben und Putze (TEMACOLOR)
   (Case T-295/08)
   (2008/C 247/37)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: CPS Color Group Oy (Vantaa, Finland) (represented by: P. Hagman, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Fema Farben und Putze GmbH (Ettlingen, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 808/2007-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TEMACOLOR’ for goods in class 2
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration No 2 104 061 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2; international trade mark registration No 691 406 of the word mark ‘FEMA-Color’ for goods in class 2
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred in law in determining that the conflicting trade marks are confusingly similar, in breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.