- 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-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0347
62008TN0347
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
25.10.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 272/43
(Case T-347/08)
(2008/C 272/85)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: iTouch International plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touchnet Information Systems, Inc. (Lenexa, United States)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2;
—In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2 to such extent as the court may deem fit; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘iTouch’ for services in classes 38 and 42
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 No 1 449 503 of the word mark ‘TOUCHNET’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.