EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009TN0265

Case T-265/09: Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Serrano Aranda v OHIM — Burg Groep (LE LANCIER)

OJ C 205, 29.8.2009, p. 46–47 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

29.8.2009   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/46


Action brought on 10 July 2009 — Serrano Aranda v OHIM — Burg Groep (LE LANCIER)

(Case T-265/09)

2009/C 205/85

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Enrique Serrano Aranda (Murcia, Spain) (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and T. Villate Consonni, 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: Burg Groep BV (Bergen, Netherlands)

Form of order sought

Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2009 in Case R-366/2008-1.

On the basis of that annulment, uphold the opposition and implement the legal consequences arising therefrom by rejecting Community trade mark application 3 343 365 in its entirety.

Order OHIM and any intervening parties to pay the costs of these proceedings, should they be opposed, and reject the forms of order which OHIM and the intervening parties seek.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Burg Groep B.V.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark containing the word component ‘LE LANCIER’ (Application No 3 343 365) for goods in Classes 29 and 30.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Enrique Serrano Aranda.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘EL LANCERO’ No 838 740 for goods in Class 30; Spanish figurative mark No 941 979 containing the word component ‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 30; Spanish word mark No 943 767‘EL LANCERO’ for goods in Class 31, and Spanish word mark No 1 806 835‘El LANCERO’ for goods in Class 29.

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal was dismissed.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 on the Community trade mark.


Top