This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/095/110
Case T-79/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)
Case T-79/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)
Case T-79/07: Action brought on 9 March 2007 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)
OJ C 95, 28.4.2007, p. 55–55
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
28.4.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 95/55 |
Action brought on 9 March 2007 — SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos v OHIM — Polaris Software Lab (POLARIS)
(Case T-79/07)
(2007/C 95/110)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: SHS Polar Sistemas Informáticos, SL (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: C. Hernández Hernández, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Polaris Software Lab Ltd (Chennai, India)
Form of order sought
|
— |
That the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market dated 8 January 2007 in Case R 658/2006-2 be annulled; |
|
— |
that OHIM bears its own cost and pays those incurred by the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Polaris Software Lab Ltd
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘POLARIS ’for goods and services in classes 9 and 42 — application No 3 267 713
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Community word mark ‘POLAR ’for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods in class 9
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision
Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as i) the earlier trade mark can be applied to software destined to a non-specialist consumer, which could give rise to a confusion, ii) the small visual and phonetic differences between the two conflicting trade marks do not suffice to avoid a likelihood of confusion and iii) both marks are connected to the same meaning.