Accept Refuse

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62011TN0355

Case T-355/11: Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)

OJ C 269, 10.9.2011, p. 52–52 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

10.9.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/52


Action brought on 5 July 2011 — Segovia Bonet v OHIM — IES (IES)

(Case T-355/11)

2011/C 269/115

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Jorge Segovia Bonet (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: M.E. López Camba and J.L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: IES Insurance Engineering Services Srl (Milan, Italy)

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 29 March 2011 in case R 749/2010-2; and

Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 6787345

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: UK trade mark registration No 2358802 of the figurative mark ‘IES’, for services in class 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld partially the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Opposition Division

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the earlier trademark and the contested community trade mark application as (i) the compared signs are confusingly similar, in particular from a phonetic point of view; and (ii) the services designated by the earlier registration are complementary to those designated by the contested Community trade mark application.


Top