- 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-555/11: Action brought on 26 October 2011 — tesa v OHIM — Superquimica (tesa TACK)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0555
62011TN0555
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
7.1.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 6/21
(Case T-555/11)
2012/C 6/38
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: tesa SE (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: F. Schwab, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: La Superquimica, SA (L’Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain)
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 5 July 2011 in case R 866/2010-1, and annul the decision of the Opposition Division in case No B 1301987; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘tesa TACK’, for goods in class 16 — Community trade mark application No 6233506
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: Spanish trade mark registration No 585323 of the word mark ‘TACK’, for goods in class 16; Spanish trade mark registration No 2515958 of the figurative mark ‘TACK Ceys’, for goods in class 16
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed the existence of likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.