Notice for the OJ

 

    PRIVATE 

Action brought on 23 November 2001 by OPI Products Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

    (Case T-288/01)

    Language of the case: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 23 November 2001 by OPI Products Inc., represented by Mr Emmanuel Cornu and Mr Eric De Gryse of Braun Bigwood SCRL, Brussels (Belgium).

A further party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH & Co. KG.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

- annul the decision of the third Board of Appeal in so far as it denies registration of the contested CTM application No 737 510 for the word mark "Nicole" for "essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions; including nail polish" in class 3;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1to order the OHIM to register the trademark "Nicole" for goods of class 3 including essential oils, cosmetics, hair lotions, dentifrices and nail polish.    

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for the Community trade mark:OPI Products Inc.

The Community trade mark concerned:The verbal mark 'Nicole' for goods in class 3.

Proprietor of the right to the trade mark

or sign asserted by way of opposition in the

opposition proceedings:Maxim Marken-Produkte GmbH & Co. KG

Trade mark or sign asserted by way of

opposition in the opposition proceedings:The national verbal mark "Nicole" for certain goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division:Partial rejection of the Opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:Annulment of the Decision of the Opposition Division for 'dentrifices' in class 3 and dismissal of the further appeal by OPI Products Inc.

Grounds of claim:Violation of Article 43(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 in that the proof of the use of the mark asserted by way of opposition was insufficient. The applicant further claims a violation of article 8(1)b of Council Regulation 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion or similarity of goods.

____________