This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0528
Case T-528/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
Case T-528/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
Case T-528/10: Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
IO C 30, 29.1.2011, p. 42–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
29.1.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 30/42 |
Action brought on 15 November 2010 — Truvo Belgium v OHIM — AOL (TRUVO)
(Case T-528/10)
()
2011/C 30/76
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Truvo Belgium (Antwerp, Belgium) (represented by: O. van Haperen, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: AOL LLC (Dulles, 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 31 August 2010 in case R 893/2009-2; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘TRUVO’, for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 5632948
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 4756169 of the figurative mark ‘TRUVEO’ for services in class 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and rejected the community trade mark application for all of class 38
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred (i) in its visual and aural comparison of the signs, (ii) in its comparison of the signs as it refused to attribute any meaning to the trademark of the opposing party, (iii) in its comparison of the services, and (iv) in its assessment of the relevant public.