Language of document :

Action brought on 8 August 2011 - Szajner v OHIM - Forge de Laguiole (LAGUIOLE)

(Case T-453/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Gilbert Szajner (Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) (represented by: A. Lakits-Josse, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Forge de Laguiole SARL (Laguiole, France)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 1 June 2011 in so far as it stated that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is declared invalid in respect of the goods covered by the application for annulment in Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28 and 34;

Order Forge de Laguiole to bear its own costs and to pay the costs incurred by Mr Szajner, including the costs of representation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark 'LAGUIOLE' for goods and services in, inter alia, Classes 8, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 28, 34 and 38 - Community trade mark No 2 468 379.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Forge de Laguiole SARL.

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the application for a declaration of invalidity was made on the basis of Article 53(1)(c) and Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009, based on the business name of Forge de Laguiole.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the Cancellation Division's decision and declaration that Community trade mark No 2 468 379 is invalid in part.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 in so far as, first, the Board of Appeal incorrectly found that the business name of Forge de Laguiole was not subject to the principle of speciality and that the name could be protected in respect of business activities not actually carried out by Forge de Laguiole and, secondly, there is no likelihood of confusion between the business name of Forge de Laguiole, used in respect of knives, and the trade mark 'LAGUIOLE', registered in respect of goods unrelated to cutlery.

____________