- 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-238/10: Action brought on 24 May 2010 — Scatizza v OHIM — Jacinto (HORSE COUTURE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0238
62010TN0238
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
31.7.2010
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 209/45
(Case T-238/10)
()
2010/C 209/69
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Stephanie Scatizza (Lugano, Switzerland) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manuel Jacinto, Lda (S. Paio de Oleiros, Portugal)
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 5 March 2010 in case R 723/2009-2;
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings; and
—Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings, should it become an intervening party in this case.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HORSE COUTURE’, for goods in class 18 — Community trade mark application No 6030399
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: Portuguese trade mark registration No 379879 of the figurative mark ‘HORSE’, for goods in class 18
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the concerned trade marks.