- 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-49/10: Action brought on 5 February 2010 — The Footwear Co. Ltd v OHIM — Reno Schuhcentrum (swiss cross FOOTWEAR)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0049
62010TN0049
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
17.4.2010
Official Journal of the European Union
C 100/56
(Case T-49/10)
2010/C 100/82
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: The Footwear Co. Ltd (Chai Wan, Hong Kong, China) (represented by: G. Griss and C. Loidl, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH (Thaleischweiler-Fröschen, 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 4 December 2009 in Case R 1705/2008-4;
—Reject definitively and in its entirety the opposition to registration of the mark applied for in respect of goods in Classes 25 and 28;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to grant registration of the mark applied for;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs, including those incurred in the opposition proceedings and before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Footwear Co. Ltd
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘swiss cross FOOTWEAR’ for goods in Classes 25 and 28 (Registration No 4 686 549)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Reno Schuhcentrum GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘criss cross’ No 30 229 875 for goods in Classes 14, 18, 25 and 28
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the Community trade mark application
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks
*
Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).