Notice for the OJ
SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1Action brought on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case T-192/04)
Language of the case: English
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 May 2004 by Flex Equipos De Descanso, S.A., Madrid (Spain), represented by R. Ocquet, lawyer.
Legget & Platt, Incorporated was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
The applicant claims that the Court should:
- annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 March 2004 in Case R 333/2003-1 and alter it insofar that it rejected the proof of evidence filed by the opponent and insofar it rejected the opposition B-386088;
- remit the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the Community trade mark application No 1607167 "LURA-FLEX" for all goods it seeks protection for;
- order the defendant to bear the costs of the current proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments:
Applicant for Community trade mark: Legget & Platt, Inc.
Community trade mark sought: The word mark "LURA-FLEX" for goods in classes 6 and 20 (Spring assemblies for incorporation into furniture, beds, mattresses and seating; furniture, beds, bedding, mattresses, ...) (No 1607167)
Proprietor of mark or sign cited
in the opposition proceedings: Fabricas Lucia Antonio Betere S.A., now Flex Equipos de Descanso S.A.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Spanish trade mark registrations for
the figurative mark "FLEX" for goods in class 6 and 20 (metallic construction materials, metallic bed frameworks; beds, mixed mattresses with metallic springs, furniture, ...) as well as the reputation of these signs in relation to all kind of beds, mattresses and pillows.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal brought by Flex Equipos de Descanso
Pleas in law: Infringement of Rule 18(2) and 22(4) of Commission Regulation No 2868/951 and the opponent's right to be heard in accordance with Rule 18 of the regulation, as well as an infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/942.
____________1 - Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 3 December 995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 303, p. )2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 0 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)