CELEX: 62009TN0204
Language: en
Date: 2009-05-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-204/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (OLYMP)

18.7.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 167/21
            
         Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (OLYMP)
   (Case T-204/09)
   2009/C 167/41
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Bellido, S.A. (Manzanares, Ciudad Real, Spain)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2009 in case R 598/2008-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘OLYMP’ for goods in class 25
   
      Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘OLIMPO’ for goods in class 25
   
      Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark concerned invalid
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, due to the fact that the concerned trade marks are not visually, aurally or conceptually similar.