CELEX: 62011TN0135
Language: en
Date: 2011-03-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-135/11: Action brought on 4 March 2011 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)

21.5.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 152/23
            
         Action brought on 4 March 2011 — Clorox v OHIM — Industrias Alen (CLORALEX)
   (Case T-135/11)
   2011/C 152/43
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: The Clorox Company (Oakland, USA) (represented by: S. Malynicz, barrister, and A. Chaudri, solicitor)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Industrias Alen SA de CV (Santa Catarina, Mexico)
   
      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 16 December 2010 in case R 521/2009-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CLORALEX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 4037371
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Greek trade mark registration No 147925 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Benelux trade mark registration No 340039 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 1, 3 and 5; Czech trade mark registration No 165741 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 04.153 1985 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 1402988 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 1, 3, 5, 29, 30, 31 and 32; Lithuanian trade mark registration No 8254 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Portuguese trade mark registration No 296498 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; Portuguese trade mark registration No 193727 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Spanish trade mark registration No 1047984 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 3; Spanish trade mark registration No 835878 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Austrian trade mark registration No 52470 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 1; Estonian trade mark registration No 8348 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; German trade mark registration No 644398 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Hungarian trade mark registration No 124182 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Latvian trade mark registration No M 10054 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Slovenian trade mark registration No 9181304 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Italian trade mark registration No 825852 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Danish trade mark registration No VR 01.019 1978 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in class 5; Finish trade mark registration No 93244 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5; Polish trade mark registration No 60273 of the word mark ‘CLOROX’, for goods in classes 3 and 5
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the Opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly analysed the distinctive character of the marks at the stage of comparing them visually, aurally and conceptually, and also failed to take account of the clear similarities between the beginnings and endings of the marks.