This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0451
Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
OJ C 298, 8.10.2011, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.10.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 298/26 |
Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
(Case T-451/11)
2011/C 298/48
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: F. Schwerbrock, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert A. Haskins (Pennsylvania, USA)
Form of order sought
— |
Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Gigabyte’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5550009
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 4954095 of the word mark ‘GIGABITER’, for services in classes 39, 40 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Section 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the contested services in classes 37 and 42 are similar to the opponent’s services in class 42.