EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0066
Case T-66/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Present Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)
Case T-66/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Present Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)
Case T-66/11: Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Present Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)
OJ C 89, 19.3.2011, p. 26–26
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
19.3.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 89/26 |
Action brought on 28 January 2011 — Present Service Ullrich v OHIM — Punt-Nou (babilu)
(Case T-66/11)
2011/C 89/50
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Present Service Ullrich Verwaltungs-GmbH (Erlangen, Germany) (represented by: A. Graf von Kalckreuth, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Punt-Nou, SL (Ontynient, Spain)
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 19 November 2010 in case R 773/2010-2; |
|
— |
Dismiss the opposition against the applicant’s trade mark ‘babilu’ and declare that the trade mark ‘babilu’ should be registered for all the goods and services applied for; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘babilu’, for goods and services in classes 16, 18, 35, 36, 38 and 41 — Community trade mark application No 7205305
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 in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 3363645 of the word mark ‘BABIDU’, for amongst others, services in class 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Accepted the opposition in its entirety
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 assessed that there was likelihood of confusion on the part of the relevant public.