- 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-247/12: Action brought on 6 June 2012 — Argo Group International v OHIM — Arisa Assurances (ARIS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0247
62012TN0247
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
11.8.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 243/25
(Case T-247/12)
2012/C 243/45
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Argo Group International Holdings Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda) (represented by: R. Hoy, S. Levine, and N. Edbrooke, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Arisa Assurances SA (Luxembourg, Luxembourg)
Form of order sought
—Annul or alter the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 March 2012 in case R 193/2011-2, so that the applicant’s mark is registered;
—Order OHIM to pay the costs of the applicant.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘ARIS’, for goods and services in class 36 — Community trade mark application No 7390404
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 307470 of the figurative mark in colours ‘ARISA ASSURANCES S.A.’ for goods and services in class 36
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant submits that OHIM and the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that the marks are legally similar and in concluding ipso facto that there is a likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.