- 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-88/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0088
62010TN0088
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 113/59
(Case T-88/10)
2010/C 113/91
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meteor Controls International Limited (Cookstown, Ireland)
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 1 December 2009 in case R 529/2009-2; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GLÄNSA”, for goods in class 11
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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “GLANZ”, for goods in classes 6, 9 and 11
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark applied for in its entirety
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 failed to make a correct global assessment and comparison of the trade marks concerned, thereby wrongly finding that these were similar and, as a result, that there was a likelihood of confusion between them.