EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2007/042/54

Case T-392/06: Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito (unibanco)

SL C 42, 24.2.2007, p. 31–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.2.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/31


Action brought on 20 December 2006 — Union Investment Privatfonds v OHIM — Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito (unibanco)

(Case T-392/06)

(2007/C 42/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: H. Keller, 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: Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, S.A.

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

allow the oppositions against registration of the word/figurative mark ‘Unibanco’ on the basis of the UniFLEXIO, UniZERO and UniVARIO marks;

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unicre-Cartão International De Crédito, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘unibanco’ for services in Classes 36 and 38 (application for registration No 1 871 896).

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative marks ‘UniFLEXIO’ and ‘UniVARIO’ for services in Classes 35 and 36, German figurative mark ‘UniZERO’ for services in Class 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of the applicant's procedural rights, since no regard was had to the evidence put forward by the applicant of the use of the marks with the ‘Uni’ element.


Top