- 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-365/09: Action brought on 17 September 2009 — Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki v OHIM — Free (FREE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0365
62009TN0365
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 267/81
(Case T-365/09)
2009/C 267/144
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Michalakopoulou Ktimatiki Touristiki AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: A. Koliothomas and K. Papadiamantis, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Free SAS (Paris, France)
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 11 June 2009 in case R 1346/2008-1;
—Dismiss the opposition;
—Order the defendant to bear the costs before the Court of First Instance; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs incurred in such proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “FREE”, for goods in class 16
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 word mark “FREE” for services in class 38; French trade mark registration of the figurative mark “FREE — LA LIBERTÉ N’A PAS DE PRIX” for services in classes 35 and 38
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety
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 failed to state reasons for its finding that there was similarity between the goods in class 16 covered by the Community trade mark concerned and services in class 38 covered by the earlier trade mark.