CELEX: 62012TN0395
Language: en
Date: 2012-09-04 00:00:00
Title: Case T-395/12: Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)

17.11.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 355/32
            
         Action brought on 4 September 2012 — Fetim v OHIM — Solid Floor (Solidfloor The professional's choice)
   (Case T-395/12)
   2012/C 355/68
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Fetim BV (Amsterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: L. Bakers, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Solid Floor Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 June 2012 in case R 884/2011-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Solidfloor The professional’s choice’, for goods in class 19 — Community trade mark application No 5667837
   
      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 in opposition: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 2390415 of the figurative mark ‘SOLID floor’, for goods in classes 19 and 37; Trade name ‘Solid Floor Ltd’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom; Domain name ‘SOLID floor’ used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, upheld the opposition in its entirety and rejected the CTM application
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.