Action brought on 5 August 2008 - Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM - Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

(Case T-308/08)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Cornu, D. Moreau and F. de Visscher, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

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 May 2008 in case R 1162/2007-2; and

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

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 figurative mark "MANGO adorably" for goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 33 209 849 of the word mark "ADIORABLE" for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 94 536 564 of the word mark "J'ADORE" for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 811 001 of the word mark "ADIORABLE" for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 687 422 of the word mark "J'ADORE" for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned and that the use of the trade mark applied for would not take unfair advantage of the reputation of earlier trade marks, on the wrong reasoning that under both legal grounds the trade marks concerned are not sufficiently similar.

____________