- 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-109/11: Action brought on 16 February 2011 — Apollo Tyres v OHIM — Endurance Technologies (ENDURACE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0109
62011TN0109
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
30.4.2011
Official Journal of the European Union
C 130/15
(Case T-109/11)
2011/C 130/28
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Apollo Tyres AG (Baden, Switzerland) (represented by: S. Szilvasi, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Endurance Technologies Pvt Ltd (Aurangabad, India)
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 25 November 2010 in case R 625/2010-1;
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENDURACE’, for goods in class 12 and services in classes 35 and 37 — Community trade mark application No 6419824
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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5819149 of the figurative mark ‘ENDURANCE’ and device in colours, for goods in class 12
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the Community trade mark application
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the applicant’s appeal and partially allowed the opponents’ request submitted under Article 8(3) RPBoA (1), and as a result partially rejected the Community trade mark application
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 216/96, of 5 February 1996, laying down the rules of procedure of the Boards of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2082/2004, of 6 December 2004