Action brought on 10 January 2012 - Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik v OHIM - Impexmetal (KFŁT KRAŚNIK)

(Case T-19/12)

Language in which the application was lodged: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Fabryka Łożysk Tocznych-Kraśnik (Kraśnik, Poland) (represented by: J. Sieklucki, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Impexmetal S.A. (Warsaw, Poland)

Form of order sought

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 27 October 2011 (Case No R 2475/2010-1) refusing registration of KFŁT KRAŚNIK as a Community trade mark for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings;

order the defendant and IMPEXMETAL S.A. to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred by the applicant in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: figurative trade mark containing the word element 'KFŁT KRAŚNIK' for goods in Class 7: machines and tool-making machines; rolling-element bearings and parts thereof (ball-bearings, rolling elements); spherical roller bearings and large-dimension roller bearings.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade marks No CTM-3415437 and CTM-3415379, for goods in Class 7, and the national (Polish) trade marks No PL-45550, PL-45826 and PL-112347, for goods in Class 7.

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009,  in so far as it was held that the trade marks are similar and that there was a likelihood of confusion, and breach of Article 8(3) of Regulation No 207/2009.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).