CELEX: 62012TN0377
Language: en
Date: 2012-08-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-377/12: Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM

27.10.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 331/27
            
         
      Action brought on 22 August 2012 — Spa Monopole v OHIM
      (Case T-377/12)
      (2012/C 331/52)
      Language in which the application was lodged: French
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. De Brouwer, E. Cornu and É. De Gryse, lawyers)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Olivar Del Desierto, SL (Almería, Spain)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 June 2012 in Case R 135/2011-4;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the defendant to pay the costs.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         Applicant for a Community trade mark: Olivar Del Desierto, SL.
      
         Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising the word element ‘OLEOSPA’ for goods and services in Classes 3, 35 and 39 — registration application No 7 268 832.
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant
      
         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Benelux word marks ‘SPA’ for goods in Classes 3 and 32
      
         Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.
      
         Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and opposition rejected.
      
         Pleas in law:
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  Infringement of Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009.