EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0187
Case T-187/10: Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Emram v OHIM — Guccio Gucci (G)
Case T-187/10: Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Emram v OHIM — Guccio Gucci (G)
Case T-187/10: Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Emram v OHIM — Guccio Gucci (G)
SL C 179, 3.7.2010, 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)
3.7.2010 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 179/43 |
Action brought on 23 April 2010 — Emram v OHIM — Guccio Gucci (G)
(Case T-187/10)
(2010/C 179/76)
Language in which the application was lodged: French
Parties
Applicant: Maurice Emram (Marseille, France) (represented by: M. Benavï, 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: Guccio Gucci SpA (Florence, Italy)
Form of order sought
— |
annulment of the decision of OHIM in Case R 1281/2008-1; |
— |
reject the opposition to the filing of the trade mark G line No 2421402 of Gucci spa; |
— |
consequently, order OHIM to pay the costs; |
— |
order Gucci spa to pay the costs or expenses of the proceedings before OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Maurice Emram.
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative trade mark “G” for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25 — Application No 2 421 402.
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Guccio Gucci SpA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national figurate trade marks “G” for goods in Classes 9, 18 and 25.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and refusal to register the mark applied for.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8 and 75 of Regulation No 40/94 (now Articles 8 and 77 of Regulation No 207/2009) inasmuch as the Board of Appeal failed to apply the legal provisions concerned correctly and carried out too brief an analysis of the evidence raised by the applicant.