- 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-486/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM — Alkar Automotive (CA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0486
62007TN0486
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
23.2.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/58
(Case T-486/07)
(2008/C 51/105)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Ford Motor Co. (Dearborn, United States) (represented by: R. Ingerl, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alkar Automotive SA (Derio, Spain)
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 Designs) of 25 October 2007 (Case R 85/2006-4);
—annul the decision of the Opposition Division of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2005 (Opposition No B 684052);
—order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Alkar Automotive SA
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘CA’ for, inter alia, goods in classes 9, 11 and 12 — application No 3 186 764
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Community word and figurative marks ‘KA’ for goods and services in classes 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 27, 32 and 37
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks due to the phonetic and visual similarity between ‘KA’ and ‘CA’, the identity of the goods and the enhanced distinctiveness of the earlier marks.