CELEX: 62014TA0320
Language: en
Date: 2015-11-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-320/14: Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines — National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line — Absolute ground for refusal — Lack of likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

18.1.2016   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 16/33
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2015 — Sephora v OHIM — Mayfield Trading (Representation of two undulating vertical lines)
   (Case T-320/14) (1)
   
   ((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark representing two undulating vertical lines - National and international figurative marks representing an undulating vertical line - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))
   (2016/C 016/40)
   Language of the case: Spanish
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Sephora (Boulogne-Billancourt, France) (represented by: H. Delabarre, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar, acting as Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the General Court: Mayfield Trading Ltd (Las Vegas, Nevada, United States of America) (represented by: A. Tarí Lázaro, lawyer)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 February 2014 (Case R 1577/2013-4) relating to opposition proceedings between Sephora and Mayfield Trading Ltd.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Sephora to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 212, 7.7.2014.