EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0145
Case T-145/10: Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
Case T-145/10: Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
Case T-145/10: Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
SL C 148, 5.6.2010, p. 40–40
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.6.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 148/40 |
Action brought on 24 March 2010 — Solae v OHIM — Délitaste (alpha taste)
(Case T-145/10)
2010/C 148/67
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Solae Holdings LLC (St. Louis, United States) (represented by: E. Armijo Chávarri, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Délitaste S.A. Industrielle et Commerciale d’Aliments (Thessaloniki, Greece)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Deem the present appeal and attached documents to have been duly filed; |
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 December 2009 in case R 92/2009-2; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to bear the costs. |
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 figurative mark “alpha taste”, for goods and services in classes 29, 30, 39 and 43
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration of the mark “ALPHA”, for goods in class 29
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially admitted the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was only a partial likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.