- 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 C-100/11 P: Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 10 May 2012 — Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Allergan Inc. (Appeal — Community trade mark — Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Article 8(5) — Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL — Community and national figurative and word marks BOTOX — Declaration of invalidity — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011CA0100
62011CA0100
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
30.6.2012
Official Journal of the European Union
C 194/4
(Case C-100/11 P) (<a id="ntc1-C_2012194EN.01000401-E0001" href="#ntr1-C_2012194EN.01000401-E0001"> (<span class="super">1</span>)</a>
(Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(5) - Community word marks BOTOLIST and BOTOCYL - Community and national figurative and word marks BOTOX - Declaration of invalidity - Relative grounds for refusal - Damage to reputation)
2012/C 194/05
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellants: Helena Rubinstein, L’Oréal SA (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, Rechtsanwalt)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent), Allergan Inc. (represented by: F. Clark, Barrister)
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) of 16 December 2010 in Joined Cases T-345/08 and T-357/08 Rubinstein and l’Oréal v OHIM — Allergan (Botolist and Botocyl), by which the General Court dismissed an action for annulment brought by the proprietor of the Community word mark ‘BOTOLIST’ for goods classified in Class 3, against Decision R 863/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 28 May 2008, which set aside the decision of the Cancellation Division rejecting the application for a declaration of invalidity of that mark, submitted by the proprietor of the Community and national figurative and word marks ‘BOTOX’ for goods classified in Classes 5 and 16 and services classified in Class 42 — Interpretation and application of Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Art. 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Relative grounds for refusal — Damage to reputation — Interpretation and application of Art. 73 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Art. 75 of Regulation No 207/2009) — Obligation to state reasons
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders Helena Rubinstein SNC and L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.
(<a id="ntr1-C_2012194EN.01000401-E0001" href="#ntc1-C_2012194EN.01000401-E0001">(<span class="super">1</span>)</a> OJ C 145, 14.5.2011).