This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0150
Case T-150/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
Case T-150/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
Case T-150/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
OJ C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 43–43
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 148/43 |
Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)
(Case T-150/10)
2010/C 148/71
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loopia AB (Västeras, Sweden)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2010 in case R 1812/2008-1; and |
— |
Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “LOOPIA”, for services in class 42
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 an 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 ad 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOPY”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, rejected the opposition and allowed the application
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.