- 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-163/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0163
62010TN0163
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
19.6.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 161/46
(Case T-163/10)
(2010/C 161/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)
Form of order sought
—Uphold the appeal;
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;
—Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.