- 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 C-23/09 P: Appeal brought on 19 January 2009 by ecoblue AG against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 12 November 2008 in Case T-281/07: ecoblue AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009CN0023
62009CN0023
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
18.4.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 90/8
—
(Case C-23/09 P)
2009/C 90/12
Language of the case: English
Parties
Appellant: ecoblue AG (represented by: C. Osterrieth, T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwälte)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
Form of order sought
The appellant claims that the Court should:
—set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 12 November 2008 in the Case T-281/07;
—to annul the decision of the First Chamber of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 25 April 2007 (Case R 0844/2006-1) regarding the community trade mark application with the application No. 002871598 ‘Ecoblue’
—order OHIM to pay the costs
Pleas in law and main arguments
The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance misapplied art. 8(1)(b) of the Community Trade Mark Regulation since the conflicting trademarks do not display the minimum degree of similarity required in order to establish a likelihood of confusion.
It is submitted that the Court of First Instance erred in finding that the distinctiveness of the earlier trademark, which formed the basis of the opposition, constitutes an essential requirement of the likelihood of confusion. The CFI failed to consider that aspect of the dispute and merely compared the two opposing trademarks from a visual, phonetic and conceptual perspective, as if the earlier trademark was a mark which enjoyed an average degree of distinctiveness.
It is also submitted that the CFI did not correctly apply the rule that consumers normally attach more importance to the first part of words. Since both word elements, ‘Eco’ and ‘blue’, are equally descriptive, the consumer automatically puts more emphasis on the first word, ‘Eco’, thereby recognising the distinctiveness of both trademarks.
It is further submitted that the CFI erred in law in failing to treat the conceptual difference between the opposing marks as being of primary importance.
—