EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0489
Case T-489/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
Case T-489/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
Case T-489/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
OJ C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 44–45
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.3.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 64/44 |
Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)
(Case T-489/07)
(2008/C 64/74)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Insight Direct USA, Inc. (Tempe, United States) (represented by: M. Gilbert and M. Moore, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Net Insight AB (Stockholm, Sweden)
Form of order sought
— |
The decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 20 September 2007 in Case R 1428/2006-2 shall be annulled and the rejection of the application for all services in classes 37 and 42 and the rejected services in class 35 be overturned and the application be allowed to proceed in respect of all of the services for which the application was published. |
— |
The Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Insight’ for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — application No 3 309 002
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Net Insight AB
Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word mark ‘NET INSIGHT’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld and partially rejected
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal wrongly identified the dominant and distinctive elements of the earlier mark and did not give consideration to all the relevant factors in assessing the similarity of the relevant goods and services. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal failed to consider all the relevant factors in relation to the global appreciation test when determining the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.