Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

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
You are here

Document C2006/096/39

Case T -57/06: Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Marly v OHIM

IO C 96, 22.4.2006, p. 22–23 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

Date of document:
22/04/2006; Dáta foilsithe
Author:
Cúirt Chéadchéime
Form:
Faisnéis bhreithiúnach

22.4.2006   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/22

Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Marly v OHIM

(Case T -57/06)

(2006/C 96/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Marly SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Mouffe, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Erdal Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Hallein, Austria)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in so far as it upholds the opposition by the proprietor of the word mark ‘TOFIX’;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including expenses necessarily incurred during proceedings before the Board of Appeal, incurred by the party initiating the proceedings and as calculated in the decision under appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOPIX’ for goods in Class 3 (application No 2 326 072)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Erdal Gesellschaft m.b.H.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘TOPIX’ for goods in Classes 3 and 4

Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in respect of all the disputed goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a visual and conceptual difference between the conflicting trade marks and a very great difference between the goods to which the two trade marks relate.

Top