Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62009TN0336

    Case T-336/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)

    IO C 256, 24.10.2009, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    Date of document:
    25/08/2009
    Date lodged:
    25/08/2009
    Author:
    Cúirt Chéadchéime
    Form:
    Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
    Authentic language:
    Béarla
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:
    Link

    24.10.2009   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 256/32

    Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)

    (Case T-336/09)

    2009/C 256/57

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicants: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topcom Europe NV (Heverlee, Belgium)

    Form of order sought

    —

    Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2009 in case R 1500/2008-2; and

    —

    Order the defendant to bear the costs.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “Topcom”, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11

    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 of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9.

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, allowed the opposition and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned, due to the fact that the goods in question are not similar nor complementary.

    Top