17.12.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 370/25
Action brought on 7 October 2011 — Luxembourg Patent Co. v OHIM — DETEC (FIREDETEC)
(Case T-527/11)
2011/C 370/43
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.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy