- 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-387/10: Action brought on 9 September 2010 — Goutier v OHIM — Eurodata (ARANTAX)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0387
62010TN0387
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
6.11.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 301/45
(Case T-387/10)
()
2010/C 301/72
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG (Saarbrücken, Germany)
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 1 July 2010 in Case R 126/2009-4, to the extent that the Community trade mark application was, by setting aside the contested decision, rejected in respect of the following services:
Class 35– Tax consultancy, tax preparation, accounting, auditing, professional business consultancy, business consultancy
Class 36– Fiscal assessments, mergers and acquisitions, namely financial consultancy with regard to the purchase or sale of companies and company shares;
Class 42– Provision of legal services, legal research;
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Klaus Goutier.
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ARANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘ANTAX’ for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial setting aside of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial rejection of the Community trade mark application.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because proof of use had not been provided, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)