EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0599
Case T-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
Case T-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
Case T-599/11: Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
OJ C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 29–30
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
4.2.2012 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 32/29 |
Action brought on 25 November 2011 — Eni v OHIM — EMI (IP) (ENI)
(Case T-599/11)
2012/C 32/61
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Eni SpA (Roma, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EMI (IP) Ltd (London, 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 8 September 2011 in case R 2439/2010-1; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENI’, for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 25 and 35 to 45 — Community trade mark application No 6488076
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 4197315 of the word mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 6167357 of the figurative mark ‘EMI’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant challenges the mentioned decision of the First Board of Appeal on the following three grounds: (i) erroneous and non-motivated finding of similarity of goods and services, based on the misunderstanding and misapplication of previous case-law on the point; (ii) erroneous interpretation and application of the Praktiker case, denoting a misunderstanding of its anti-monopolistic inspiring principles and in particular of the ratio that inspired the introduction of registrability of retail services; and (iii) erroneous finding of similarity of signs, and erroneous finding of likelihood of confusion.