- 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-107/10: Action brought on 3 March 2010 — Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne v OHIM — Natura Cosméticos (NATURAVIVA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0107
62010TN0107
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
22.5.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 134/38
(Case T-107/10)
2010/C 134/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Procter & Gamble Manufacturing Cologne GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Natura Cosméticos, SA (Itapecerica da Serra, Brazil)
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 23 November 2009 in case R 1558/2008-2;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings before the defendant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NATURAVIVA’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 44
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3; Community trade mark registration of the mark ‘VIVA’, for goods in class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.