Action brought on 7 October 2011 - Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM - DETEC (FIREDETEC)

(Case T-527/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Luxembourg Patent Co. SA (Lintgen, Luxembourg) (represented by: K. Manhaeve, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sistemas de Seguridad, Detección y Extinción de Incendios, SL (DETEC) (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 26 July 2011 in case R 736/2010-4 insofar as it has declared the opponent's opposition successful against the applicant's trademark application for "fire-extinguishing apparatus; fire-extinguishing apparatus for automatic and independent detection and extinguishing of fires" in class 9 and "development of fire extinguishers and fire extinguishing apparatus" in class 42; and

Order the defendant and - if applicable - the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to jointly and severally pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "FIREDETEC" for goods in classes 1, 9, 17 and 42 - Community trade mark application No 4904389

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 1759982 of the figurative mark "DETEC", for goods in class 9; Spanish trade mark registration No 1759983 of the figurative mark "DETEC", for services in class 37; Community trade mark registration No 3813219 of the figurative mark "DETEC Sistemas de Seguridad, Detección y Extinción de Incendios, SL", for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 45

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark.

____________