EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/224/105
Case T-202/06: Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)
Case T-202/06: Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)
Case T-202/06: Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)
OJ C 224, 16.9.2006, p. 50–50
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
16.9.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 224/50 |
Action brought on 31 July 2006 — Select Appointments v OHIM — Manpower (TELESELECT)
(Case T-202/06)
(2006/C 224/105)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Select Appointments (Holdings) Ltd. (St Albans, United Kingdom) (represented by: G.R. Fernando, Barrister, C.J. Leech, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Manpower Inc. (Milwaukee, USA)
Form of order sought
|
— |
That the decision of the OHIM Board of Appeal dated 18 May 2006 permitting the registration of application No 1 030 980 and dismissing opposition No B 303 158 be set aside; |
|
— |
that the application be refused; and |
|
— |
that the appellant have its costs of the Appeal and below before OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Manpower Inc.
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TELESELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 (Assessment and training services in the field of telephone call handling)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Select Appointments (Holdings)
Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘SELECT’ for services in classes 35 and 41 — application No 2 111 367 (employment agency, consultancy, information on job opportunities, advertising and personnel management services)
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as, according to the applicant, the likelihood of confusion even in parts of the European Community justified the refusal of registration of the contested mark. Considering the average consumers do not necessarily speak English, the word mark would not have any significant meaning to them, as regards the part ‘SELECT’.
Moreover, the applicant claims that assessment services provided by the contested mark are encompassed by the wider employment agency services covered by its own Community trade mark.