Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0624

Case T-624/11: Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

OJ C 32, 4.2.2012, p. 38–39 (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 32/38


Action brought on 30 November 2011 — Yueqing Onesto Electric v OHIM — Ensto (ONESTO)

(Case T-624/11)

2012/C 32/76

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Yueqing Onesto Electric Co. Ltd (Zhejiang, China) (represented by: B. Piepenbrink, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ensto Oy (Porvoo, Finland)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 September 2011 in case R 2535/2010-2; and

Order that the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘ONESTO’, for goods in class 9 — Community trade mark application No W00909305

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 1980242 of the figurative mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11; Community trade mark registration No 40600 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9, 11 and 16; Finish trade mark registration No 218071 of the word mark ‘ENSTO’, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the community trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erroneously found that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the earlier mark and the Community trade mark application.


Top