- 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-444/10: Action brought on 28 September 2010 — ESGE v OHIM — Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg (KMIX)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0444
62010TN0444
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 317/44
(Case T-444/10)
()
2010/C 317/78
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: ESGE AG (Bussnang, Switzerland) (represented by: J. Klink, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
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 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2;
—Amend the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2010 in Case R 1249/2009-2 so that the Opposition Division’s decision of 21 August 2008 in Case B 1252958 is annulled;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs incurred in the course of the appeal procedure.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kenwood Appliances Luxembourg SA
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘KMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 11
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘BAMIX’ for goods in Classes 7 and 40
Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (1) as there is a likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).