Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62007TN0446

Case T-446/07: Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

SL C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 30–31 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.2.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/30

Action brought on 7 December 2007 — Royal Appliance International v OHIM — BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte (Centrixx)

(Case T-446/07)

(2008/C 37/47)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Royal Appliance International GmbH (Hilden, Germany) (represented by: K.-J. Michaeli and M. Schork, 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: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich, Germany)

Form of order sought

—

To annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 in Case R 572/2006-4;

—

To order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs and those of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Centrixx’ for goods in Class 7 (application No 3 016 227).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘sensixx’ for goods in Class 7 (No 30 244 090).

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 of the application for registration of the mark.

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), since the Board of Appeal incorrectly applied the principles of Community case-law concerning the 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).

Top