- 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-366/11: Action brought on 6 July 2011 — Bial — Portela & Ca v OHIM — Isdin (ZEBEXIR)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0366
62011TN0366
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
10.9.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 269/53
(Case T-366/11)
2011/C 269/118
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Bial — Portela & Ca, SA (São Mamede do Coronado, Portugal) (represented by: B. Braga da Cruz and J. M. Pimenta, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Isdin, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
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 6 April 2011 in case R 1212/2009-1;
—Order the defendant to refuse the grant of the registration of Community trade mark No 6809008 ‘ZEBEXIR’; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZEBEXIR’, for goods in classes 3 and 5 — Community trade mark application No 6809008
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3424223 of the word mark ‘ZEBINIX’, for goods and services in classes 3, 5 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected 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 that the trademarks in question were not confusingly similar.