- 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-389/11: Action brought on 18 July 2011 — Guccio Gucci v OHIM Chang Qing Qing (GUDDY)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0389
62011TN0389
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
24.9.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/34
(Case T-389/11)
2011/C 282/67
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Guccio Gucci SpA (Firenze, Italy) (represented by: F. Jacobacci, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Chang Qing Qing (Firenze, Italy)
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 14 April 2011 in case R 143/2010-1 insofar as it rejected the opposition for the remainder of goods in classes 9 and 14; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
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 ‘GUDDY’, for various goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25 — Community trade mark application No 6799531
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 121988 of the word mark ‘GUCCI’, for goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and partially dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed (i) to examine accurately the documents submitted to reach the appropriate conclusion regarding the higher distinctiveness of the trademark ‘GUCCI’ and as regards the phonetic comparison between the trademarks and subsequently erred in (ii) interpreting and applying Article 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation.