- 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-336/10: Action brought on 10/08/2010 — Abercrombie & Fitch Europe/OHMI — Gilli (GILLY HICKS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0336
62010TN0336
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
9.10.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 274/29
(Case T-336/10)
()
2010/C 274/44
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Abercrombie & Fitch Europe SA (Mendrisio, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, D. Stone and L. Ritchie, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gilli Srl (Milano, 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 20 May 2010 in case R 832/2008-1, and;
—Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GILLY HICKS”, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 5194543
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 3566007 of the figurative mark “GILLI”, for goods in classes 3, 9, 14 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision partially
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal did not carry out a correct visual, aural or conceptual comparison of the marks and therefore erred in relation to the likelihood of confusion.