- 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-336/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0336
62009TN0336
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
24.10.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 256/32
(Case T-336/09)
2009/C 256/57
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topcom Europe NV (Heverlee, Belgium)
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 June 2009 in case R 1500/2008-2; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “Topcom”, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11
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 of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, allowed the opposition and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned, due to the fact that the goods in question are not similar nor complementary.