EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0400
Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
OJ C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 51–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
22.11.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/51 |
Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
(Case T-400/08)
(2008/C 301/87)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)
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 14 July 2008 in case R 957/2006-4, insofar as it dismisses the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition number B 760 605; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in classes 1, 2 and 4
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 No 137 828 of the word mark ‘ENERGOL’ for goods in classes 1 and 4
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition except for the goods that were found dissimilar
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal for the goods that were found dissimilar and dismissed the appeal for the remainder
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.