- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-502/09: Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0502
62009TN0502
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
27.2.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/35
(Case T-502/09)
2010/C 51/68
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Inovis, Inc. (Alpharetta, United States) (represented by: R. Black and B. Ladas, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonaecom — Serviços de Communicações, S.A. (Maia, Portugal)
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 September 2009 in case R 1691/2008-1;
—Direct the Board of Appeal of the defendant to register the application for the Community trade mark; and
—Order the defendant to bear its own costs and those of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “INOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42
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: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “NOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: 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: (i) ignored the clear differences between the respective goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned, including that it erroneously considered that the earlier mark covered classes 9 and 42, whereas registration for such classes was refused by the Portuguese Trade mark Office, and that, in any event, such registration was not substantiated during the proceedings; (ii) ignored the clear conceptual differences between the trade marks concerned; and (iii) held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.