- 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-606/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Woodman Labs V OHIM — 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral (HERO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0606
62011TN0606
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
4.2.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 32/32
(Case T-606/11)
2012/C 32/66
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Woodman Labs, Inc. (Sausalito, United States of America) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: 2 Mas 2 Publicidad Integral, SL (Vitoria-Gasteiz, 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 29 September 2011 in case R 876/2010-4; and
—Order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HERO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No 6750376
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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5883533 of the figurative mark in gold and black ‘hero PICTURES’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: The Community trade mark application was allowed to proceed for part of the goods in class 9
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly ruled that likelihood of confusion exists between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.