EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0347
Case T-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
Case T-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
Case T-347/08: Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
SL C 272, 25.10.2008, 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)
25.10.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 272/43 |
Action brought on 20 August 2008 — iTouch International v OHIM — Touchnet Information Systems (iTouch)
(Case T-347/08)
(2008/C 272/85)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: iTouch International plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: T. Alkin, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Touchnet Information Systems, Inc. (Lenexa, 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 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2; |
— |
In the alternative, annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 493/2007-2 to such extent as the court may deem fit; and |
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘iTouch’ for services in classes 38 and 42
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 1 449 503 of the word mark ‘TOUCHNET’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there exists a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.