Judgment of the General Court of 30 September 2015 — Mocek, Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna v OHIM — Lacoste (KAJMAN)
(Case T-364/13) 1
(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community figurative mark KAJMAN — Earlier Community figurative mark representing a crocodile — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(Trade Marks and Designs) (re
presente
d initially by P. Geroulakos, and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)Re:Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Prod
ukcyjna (Chojnice, Poland) (represented by: K. Grala and B. Szczepaniak, lawyers)Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for
b
y D. Gája, acting as Agents)Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Lacoste SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Gaultier, lawyer)Re:Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 May 2013 (Case R 2466/2010-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Lacoste SA and Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna.Operative part of the judgmentThe Court:Dismisses the action;Dismisses the applications for annulment and alteration submitted by Lacoste SA;Orders Eugenia Mocek, Jadwiga Wenta KAJMAN Firma Handlowo-Usługowo-Produkcyjna to pay all the costs relating to the action and to bear its own costs relating to the applications of Lacoste SA for annulment and alteration;Orders Lacoste SA to bear its own costs relating to its applications for annulment and alteration.
____________1 OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.