This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62012TN0153
Case T-153/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP (SKYDRIVE)
Case T-153/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP (SKYDRIVE)
Case T-153/12: Action brought on 5 April 2012 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP (SKYDRIVE)
OJ C 184, 23.6.2012, p. 14–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
23.6.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 184/14 |
Action brought on 5 April 2012 — Microsoft v OHIM — Sky IP (SKYDRIVE)
(Case T-153/12)
2012/C 184/26
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Microsoft Corp. (Redmond, US) (represented by: A. Carboni and J. Colbourn, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sky IP International Ltd (Isleworth, United Kingdom)
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 19 January 2012 in case R 2293/2010-1, and remit the application to OHIM to allow it to proceed; and |
|
— |
Order OHIM and any intervening party in this Appeal to bear their own costs and pay the applicant’s costs of these proceedings and those of the appeal before the First Board of Appeal in case R 2293/2010-1 and of Opposition B 1 371 501 before the Opposition Division. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SKYDRIVE’, for goods and services in classes 9 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 6452411
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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3203411 of the word mark ‘SKY’, for amongst others goods and services in classes 9, 35, 38 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal’s assessment of the likelihood of confusion was flawed. Further or in the alternative, the Board failed to carry out a proper global assessment of the likelihood of confusion.