Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62010TN0150

    Case T-150/10: Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)

    IO C 148, 5.6.2010, 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)

    5.6.2010   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 148/43


    Action brought on 26 March 2010 — Telefónica O2 Germany v OHIM — Loopia (LOOPIA)

    (Case T-150/10)

    2010/C 148/71

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Telefónica O2 Germany GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Loopia AB (Västeras, Sweden)

    Form of order sought

    Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 January 2010 in case R 1812/2008-1; and

    Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal proceedings.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

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

    Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “LOOPIA”, for services in class 42

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

    Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registrations of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 an 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOP”, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38 ad 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark “LOOPY”, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision, rejected the opposition and allowed the application

    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 trade marks concerned.


    Top