- 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-385/09: Action brought on 2 October 2009 — Annco v OHIM — Freche et fils (ANN TAYLOR LOFT)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0385
62009TN0385
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
21.11.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 282/61
(Case T-385/09)
2009/C 282/113
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Annco, Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: G. Triet, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Freche et fils associés SARL (Paris, France)
Form of order sought
—Declare the appeal well founded;
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1;
—Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2009 in case R 1485/2008-1, in favour of the registration of the Community trade mark concerned for classes 18 and 25, in addition to class 35;
—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 mark “ANN TAYLOR LOFT”, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35
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: French trade mark registration of the mark “LOFT” for goods in classes 18 and 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of 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; infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly relied on evidence and reasons on which the applicant was not given the opportunity to comment.