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-30/09: Action brought on 21 January 2009 — Engelhorn v OHIM — The Outdoor Group (peerstorm)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0030

62009TN0030

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

4.4.2009

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/29

(Case T-30/09)

(2009/C 82/52)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Engelhorn KGaA (Mannheim, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: The Outdoor Group Limited (Northampton, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

annul Decision R-167/2008-5 of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 28 October 2008; and

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘peerstorm’ for goods and services in Class 25 (Community trade mark application No 4 115 382)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Outdoor Group Limited

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘PETER STORM’ for goods in Class 25 (Community trade mark No 833 566) and the British trade mark ‘PETER STORM’ for goods in Class 18

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and rejection of the application for a Community trade mark

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing trade marks, and infringement of Rule 22 of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) inasmuch as use preserving the right to use the trade mark cited in opposition has not been sufficiently proven.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

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