Action brought on 31 May 2011 - Ghost Brand v OHIM - Procter & Gamble International Operations (GHOST)

(Case T-298/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Ghost Brand Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: N. Caddick, QC)

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

The Appellant to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Procter & Gamble International Operations SA (Geneva, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

Order that transfer of ownership in respect of Community Trade Mark Registration No 000282350 "GHOST" to Procter & Gamble International Operations S.A. should be recorded and published only in respect of "cosmetics", and that ownership of the registration in relation to all goods in class 25, and "soaps, perfumery, essential oils, hair lotions" in class 3 should remain in the name of Ghost Brand Limited.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which an application for transfer of ownership has been made: The word mark "GHOST", for goods in class 3 ("soaps, perfumery, essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions") - Community trade mark registration No 282350

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party applying for the transfer of ownership of the Community trade mark: The Appellant to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Decision of the Department for Designs and Register: Rejected the application for a partial transfer of ownership

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and decided that the Department for Designs and Register shall record and publish the transfer of ownership

Pleas in law: The applicant advances three pleas in law, mainly that: (i) the Second Board of Appeal erred in not notifying the applicant of the appeal proceedings, or the appeal decision; (ii) the Second Board of Appeal was not provided with all of the necessary information, and the appellant's appeal was based on deception; and, (iii) the appellant acted in bad faith in appealing the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market.

____________