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
(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ATOZ - Earlier international word mark ARTOZ - No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use - Starting point for the five-year time-limit - Date of registration of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Obligation to state the reasons on which a measure is based - Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR)
(2009/C 19/45)
Language of the case: English
Applicant: Deepak Rajani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Dustmann, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G. Schneider and A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agents)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Artoz-Papier AG (Lenzburg, Switzerland)
Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1126/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Artoz Papier AG and Deepak Rajani.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Deepak Rajani to pay the costs.
(<span class="super">1</span>) OJ C 235, 6.10.2007.