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 62010TN0163

Case T-163/10: Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

IO C 161, 19.6.2010, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

19.6.2010   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/46

Action brought on 7 April 2010 — Entegris v OHIM — Optimize Technologies (OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES)

(Case T-163/10)

(2010/C 161/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Entegris, Inc. (Billerica, United States) (represented by: T. Ludbrook, Barrister and M. Rosser, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Optimize Technologies, Inc. (Oregon City, United States)

Form of order sought

—

Uphold the appeal;

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 18 January 2010 in case R 802/2009-2;

—

Reject the Community trade mark application in question; and

—

Order the defendant to bear the costs, including those related to the appeal and opposition 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 ‘OPTIMIZE TECHNOLOGIES’, for goods in class 9.

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

Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the word mark “OPTIMIZER”, for goods in classes 1, 9 and 11.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the said legal provision in accordance with the relevant case law, thereby wrongly finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Top