- 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-557/10: Action brought on 3 December 2010 — H. Eich v OHIM — Arav (H. Eich)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0557
62010TN0557
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
29.1.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 30/56
(Case T-557/10)
()
2011/C 30/98
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
Parties
Applicant: H. Eich Srl (Signa, Italy) (represented by: D. Mainini, T. Rubin, A. Masetti Zannini de Concina, M. Bucarelli, G. Petrocchi, B. Passaretti, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Arav Holding Srl (Palma Campania, Italy)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 9 September 2010;
—Declare valid the mark H. EICH referred to in registration application No 6 256 242;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs of all proceedings, including before the two OHIM instances.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: H. Eich
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘H. Eich’ (registration application No 6 256 242), for goods in Classes 18 and 25;
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Arav Holding Srl
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark containing the word element ‘H-Silvian Heach’ (Italian mark No 976 125, and mark No 880 562, pursuant to the Protocol to the Madrid Agreement, for Benelux, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania, the United Kingdom), for goods in Classes 18 and 25.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the application for registration.
Pleas in law: Incorrect application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark (no likelihood of confusion).