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
EN
2011/C 355/45
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hebei Aulion Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (Xuanhua, China)
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 19 July 2011 in case R 1870/2010-1;
—Reject the Community trade mark application No 5029731; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings to bear the costs of the applicant in connection with the present proceedings, the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the proceedings before the Opposition division.
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘LOVOL’, for goods in classes 7 and 12 — Community trade mark application No 5029731
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 2361087, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-9, 11-12, 14, 16-18, 20-22, 24-28 and 33-42; Community trade mark application No 4804522, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6, 7, 9, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35-39 and 41; UK trade mark registration No 747361, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 747362, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 12; UK trade mark registration No 1051579, of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7; UK trade mark registration No 1408143, of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for goods in class 7
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to take all relevant factors into account when comparing the marks, thereby mistakenly found that there was no similarity in the marks. Infringement of a rule of law related to the application of the Regulation, and in particular, the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in cases C-361/04 P, Ruiz-Picasso e.a./OHMI of 12 January 2006, ECR I-643 and case C-252/07, Intel Corporation, ECR I-8823, by applying them in a rigidly formalistic manner, and consequently, by not examining the merits of the opposition under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.