- 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-1/09: Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0001
62009TN0001
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
21.3.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 69/44
(Case T-1/09)
(2009/C 69/98)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);
—Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG.
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).