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
(2008/C 209/112)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Venezia, Italy) (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: Dynamiki Zoi Anonymi Etairia (Peristeri, Greece)
—Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 1429/2007-1;
—Reject Community trade mark No 3 725 298 ‘FITCOIN’; and
—Order the other parties to pay the costs, including those of the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FITCOIN’ for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 — application No 3 725 298
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 160 126 for goods in class 25; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 253 233 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 305 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 169 548 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; the Italian trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 240 286 for goods and services in class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and Austria; Community trade mark ‘coin’ registration No 109 827 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35; international trade mark ‘coin’ registration No R 381 015 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are visually and phonetically similar and the goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned are identical; infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the use of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.