Action brought on 12 October 2011 - Spectrum Brands (UK) v OHIM  Philips (STEAM GLIDE)

(Case T-544/11)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spectrum Brands (UK) Ltd (Manchester, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koninklijke Philips Electronics NV (Eindhoven, Netherlands)

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 14 July 2011 in case R 1289/2010-1; and

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and those incurred by the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: The word mark "STEAM GLIDE", for goods in class 9 - Community trade mark registration No 5167382

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal filed a request for a declaration of invalidity on the basis of Article 52(1)(a) in conjunction with the absolute grounds of refusal of Article 7(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and declared the Community trade mark registration invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in relation to the meaning and syntax of the mark and its component parts, as well as its aptness or otherwise as an immediate and direct descriptive term for the goods in question. Further the Board of Appeal failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(c) CTMR. Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to consider the essential function of the mark, failed to consider the perspective of the average consumer, failed to consider Article 7(1)(b) separately from Article 7(1)(c), failed to consider the general interest that underlies Article 7(1)(b) CTMR and failed to analyse the mark as a whole.

____________