CELEX: 62010TN0305
Language: en
Date: 2010-07-23 00:00:00
Title: Case T-305/10: Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)

23.10.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 288/41
            
         
      Action brought on 23 July 2010 — Hartmann-Lamboy v OHIM — Diptyque (DYNIQUE)
      (Case T-305/10)
      ()
      (2010/C 288/80)
      Language in which the application was lodged: German
      
         Parties
      
      
         Applicant: Marlies Hartmann-Lamboy (Westerburg, Germany) (represented by: R. Loos, lawyer)
      
         Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
      
         Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: DIPTYQUE SAS (Paris, France)
      
         Form of order sought
      
      
                  —
               
               
                  Annul, in part, the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 May 2010 in Case R 1217/2009-1 or amend it in so far as the applicant was unsuccessful;
               
            
                  —
               
               
                  order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the proceedings before the General Court.
               
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
      
      
         Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
      
         Community trade mark concerned: Word mark DYNIQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 41 and 44.
      
         Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DIPTYQUE SAS
      
         Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark DIPTYQUE for goods and services in classes 3, 4 and 35
      
         Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was upheld.
      
         Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed in part.
      
         Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
      
         (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).