Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TN0347

    Case T-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)

    IO C 272, 25.10.2008, p. 43–43 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.10.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 272/43


    Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)

    (Case T-347/08)

    (2008/C 272/85)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: iTouch International plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touchnet Information Systems, Inc. (Lenexa, United States)

    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 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2;

    In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2 to such extent as the court may deem fit; 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 ‘iTouch’ for services in classes 38 and 42

    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 1 449 503 of the word mark ‘TOUCHNET’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42

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

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

    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 exists a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.


    Top