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
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark SPA THERAPY - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
2009/C 113/68
Language of the case: French
Applicant: L’Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervening before the Court of First Instance: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: E. Cornu, L. De Brouwer and D. Moreau, lawyers)
Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.