- 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-204/09: Action brought on 25 May 2009 — Olymp Bezner v OHIM — Bellido (OLYMP)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0204
62009TN0204
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
18.7.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 167/21
(Case T-204/09)
2009/C 167/41
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Olymp Bezner GmbH & Co. KG (Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch and M. Eck, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel Bellido, S.A. (Manzanares, Ciudad Real, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 March 2009 in case R 598/2008-2; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘OLYMP’ for goods in class 25
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Spanish trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘OLIMPO’ for goods in class 25
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the Community trade mark concerned invalid
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of confusion, due to the fact that the concerned trade marks are not visually, aurally or conceptually similar.