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
Appeal – Community trade mark – Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Article 8(1)(b) – Likelihood of confusion – Word sign ‘FOCUS’
Appeals – Pleas in law – Incorrect assessment of the evidence – Inadmissibility – Review by the Court of Justice of the assessment of the evidence – Possible only where the clear sense of the evidence has been distorted (Art. 225(1) EC; Statute of the Court of Justice, Art. 58, first para.) (see para. 49)
Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Third Chamber) of 16 May 2007 in Case T-491/04 Merant v OHIM, by which that Court annulled decision R 542/2002-2 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 18 October 2004 upholding an action against the opposition decision which partially rejected the application for registration of Community word mark ‘FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 in opposition proceedings brought by the proprietor of the national figurative mark ‘MICRO FOCUS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 41 and 42 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.
The Court:
1.Dismisses the appeal;
2.Orders Focus Magazin Verlag GmbH to pay the costs.