This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2007/235/27
Case T-281/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)
Case T-281/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)
Case T-281/07: Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)
IO C 235, 6.10.2007, p. 15–15
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
6.10.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 235/15 |
Action brought on 23 July 2007 — ecoblue v OHIM — BBVA (Ecoblue)
(Case T-281/07)
(2007/C 235/27)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: ecoblue AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case No R 844/2006-1; |
|
— |
reject the opposition filed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the ‘Ecoblue’ word mark applied for; |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Ecoblue’ for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 (application No 2 871 598).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word marks ‘BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 1 345 974), ‘BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 100), ‘BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 065 621), ‘TARJETA BLUE BBVA’ (Community trade mark No 2 277 291), ‘QNTAME BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 391 878), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE’ (Community trade mark No 2 392 181), ‘HIPOTECA BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 2 794 998) and ‘MOTOR BLUE JOVEN’ (Community trade mark No 3 060 878).
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration rejected.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the opposing marks are not similar and there is therefore no likelihood of confusion.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).