- 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-4/09: Action brought on 5 January 2009 — UniCredit v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0004
62009TN0004
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
7.3.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 55/46
(Case T-4/09)
(2009/C 55/82)
Language in which the application was lodged: Italian
Parties
Applicant: UniCredit SpA (Rome, Italy) (represented by: G. Floridia, lawyer, and R. Floridia, 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: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM delivered on 3 November 2008 in Case R 1449/2006-2, relating to opposition proceedings No B 699.746.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: Multi-coloured figurative mark ‘1 UniCredit’ (the number one being 45° inclined to the right and impressed on the spherical logo) (registration application No 2.911.105), for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UniSECTOR’, ‘UniDynamicFonds’ and ‘UniGarant’, for services in Classes 35 and 36.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of the services in Class 36.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark. The applicant argues that the contested decision did not take account of the powers of perception of the public at which the services covered are directed or of the non-existent or minimal distinctiveness of the prefix ‘Uni’.