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 SPALINE – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Damage to reputation – Unfair advantage derived from the reputation of the earlier mark – Use of the mark applied for without due cause – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation – Protection of well-known earlier mark extended to dissimilar goods or services (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 21, 24-25, 35-36, 40)
Re:
ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 October 2006 (Case R 415/2005-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV and L’Oréal SA.
Applicant for the Community trade mark:
Community trade mark sought:
Community mark SPALINE for goods in Class 3 – Application No 989236
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV
Mark or sign cited in opposition:
National and international word marks SPA, LIP SPA, SPA SKIN CARE and Les Thermes de Spa for goods in Classes 3, 32 and 42.
Decision of the Opposition Division:
Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal:
Appeal dismissed
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders L’Oréal SA to pay the costs.