This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0355
Case T-355/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
Case T-355/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
Case T-355/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
OJ C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 52–52
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
10.9.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 269/52 |
Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)
(Case T-355/11)
2011/C 269/115
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant(s): Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 29 March 2011 in case R 749/2010-2; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 6787345
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited in opposition: UK trade mark registration No 2358802 of the figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in class 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld partially the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division
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 earlier trademark and the contested community trade mark application as (i) the compared signs are confusingly similar, in particular from a phonetic point of view; and (ii) the services designated by the earlier registration are complementary to those designated by the contested Community trade mark application.