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 -338/09: Action brought on 27 August 2009 — Müller-Boré & Partner v OHIM — Popp and Other (MBP)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0338

62009TN0338

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

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/73

(Case T -338/09)

2009/C 267/132

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Müller-Boré & Partner (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: E. Popp (Munich, Germany), W. E. Sajda (Munich), J. Bohnenberger (Munich), V. Kruspig (Munich)

Form of order sought

Annulment the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 June 2009 in Case R 1176/2007-4 and amendment of it so as to reject the appeal and objection in their entirety;

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MBP’ for services in Classes 35 and 42 (Application No. 1 407 857)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: E. Popp, W. E. Sajda, J. Bohnenberger and V. Kruspig

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘ip_law@mbp.’ for services in Class 42 (Community Trademark No. 667 105) and the special trade name ‘mbp.de.’ under German trade mark law

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Opposition upheld in part

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, 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