Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62008TN0400

    Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)

    OJ C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 51–52 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    22.11.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 301/51

    Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)

    (Case T-400/08)

    (2008/C 301/87)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)

    Form of order sought

    —

    Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 in case R 957/2006-4, insofar as it dismisses the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition number B 760 605; and

    —

    Order the defendant to pay the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in classes 1, 2 and 4

    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: Community trade mark registration No 137 828 of the word mark ‘ENERGOL’ for goods in classes 1 and 4

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition except for the goods that were found dissimilar

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal for the goods that were found dissimilar and dismissed the appeal for the remainder

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

    Top