- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-562/11: Action brought on 28 October 2011 — Symbio Gruppe v OHIM — ADA Cosmetic (SYMBIOTIC CARE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0562
62011TN0562
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
14.1.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 13/18
(Case T-562/11)
2012/C 13/38
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Symbio Gruppe GmbH & Co. KG (Herborn, Germany) (represented by: A. Schulz and C. Onken, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ADA Cosmetic GmbH (Kehl, Germany)
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 18 August 2011 in Case R 2121/2010-4;
—order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: ADA Cosmetic GmbH.
Community trade mark concerned: International Registration of a figurative mark containing the word element ‘SYMBIOTIC CARE’ for goods in Classes 3, 5, 29 and 30.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word and figurative marks ‘SYMBIOFLOR’ and ‘SYMBIOLACT’, international registration of the word mark ‘SYMBIOFEM’ and figurative mark ‘SYMBIOVITAL’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 5, 29 and 32.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue, and infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 207/2009, since the Board of Appeal disregarded the fact that the trade marks on which the opposition was based form a family of marks.