- 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-69/11: Action brought on 24 January 2011 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (Truvo)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62011TN0069
62011TN0069
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
19.3.2011
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 89/26
(Case T-69/11)
2011/C 89/51
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O.F.A.W. van Haperen, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, United States)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 21 October 2010 in case R 956/2009-2; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in colour ‘Truvo’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 6288484
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 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the Community trade mark application for all of class 38
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as well as it lacks proper motivation, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its comparison of the services, (ii) in its comparison of the signs, (iii) in its assessment of the relevant public, and (iv) in its assessment of likelihood of confusion.