EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-225/09: Action brought on 8 June 2009 — CLARO v OHIM — Telefónica (Claro)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0225

62009TN0225

January 1, 2009
With Google you find a lot.
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

1.8.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 180/61

(Case T-225/09)

2009/C 180/113

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: CLARO, SA (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Telefónica, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 February 2009, in Case R 1079/2008-2, remit the case to that board for it to decide on it afresh, and order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: BCP S/A, now trading as CLARO, S.A., the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Three-dimensional trade mark containing the word element “CLARO” (application for registration No 5 229 241), for goods and services in Classes 9 and 38.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Telefónica S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: earlier Community word mark “CLARO” (No 2 017 341), for, inter alia, goods and services in Classes 9 and 38.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed as inadmissible, since the applicant had not filed the relevant statement of grounds for the appeal.

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that the contested decision is contrary to the principle of functional continuity between the Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal. It argues that it was obvious that its appeal was against the Opposition Division’s decision in its entirety, and that the appeal was based on the misinterpretation by the Opposition Division of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia