EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0505
Case T-505/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
Case T-505/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
Case T-505/10: Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
OJ C 346, 18.12.2010, p. 55–56
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
18.12.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 346/55 |
Action brought on 18 October 2010 — Höganäs v OHIM — Haynes (ASTALOY)
(Case T-505/10)
()
2010/C 346/108
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Höganäs AB (Höganäs, Sweden) (represented by: L.-E. Ström, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Haynes International, Inc. (Kokomo, USA)
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 18 August 2010 in case R 1530/2009-4; |
|
— |
Reject the opposition decision No B 85624; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “ASTALOY”, for goods in class 6 — Community trade mark application No 3890233
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 55400 of the word mark “HASTELLOY”, for goods in class 6
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Articles 8 and 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of likelihood of confusion as well as in its assessment of the similarity of the contested trade mark.