EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-426/09: Action brought on 21 October 2009 — Bayerische Asphalt-Mischwerke v OHIM — Koninklijke BAM Groep (bam)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0426

62009TN0426

January 1, 2009
With Google you find a lot.
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

16.1.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11/29

(Case T-426/09)

2010/C 11/56

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayerische Asphaltmischwerke GmbH & Co. KG für Straβenbaustoffe (Hofolding, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor, and G. Würtenberger, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Koninklijke BAM Groep NV (Bunnik, The Netherlands)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 August 2009 in case R 1005/2008-2, in so far as the opposition was rejected with respect to “non-metallic rigid piping for building; transportable structures; monuments, not of metal; building construction; repairs; repair and maintenance”;

Grant the opposition against the Community trade mark concerned also for “non-metallic rigid piping for building; transportable structures; monuments, not of metal; building construction; repairs; repair and maintenance”;

Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “bam”, for goods and services in classes 6, 19, 37 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “bam”, for goods in classes 7 and 19

Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled partially the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that there was similarity between the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned, on one hand, and the goods covered by the trade mark cited in the opposition proceedings, on the other hand; misuse of power as the Board of Appeal acted ultra vires; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to deal, in a comprehensive manner, with the applicant’s arguments set forth in the appeal substantiation; infringement of Article 63(1) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in limiting the scope of protection of the Community trade mark concerned and, thus, wrongly failed to take into account all relevant factors.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia