- 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-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0599
62011TN0599
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 32/29
(Case T-599/11)
2012/C 32/61
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Eni SpA (Roma, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EMI (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2011 in case R 2439/2010-1; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENI’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 25 and 35 to 45 — Community trade mark application No 6488076
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 4197315 of the word mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 6167357 of the figurative mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant challenges the mentioned decision of the First Board of Appeal on the following three grounds: (i) erroneous and non-motivated finding of similarity of goods and services, based on the misunderstanding and misapplication of previous case-law on the point; (ii) erroneous interpretation and application of the Praktiker case, denoting a misunderstanding of its anti-monopolistic inspiring principles and in particular of the ratio that inspired the introduction of registrability of retail services; and (iii) erroneous finding of similarity of signs, and erroneous finding of likelihood of confusion.