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 62006TJ0099

Summary of the Judgment

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 23 September 2009 — Phildar v OHIM — Comercial Jacinto Parera (FILDOR)

(Case T-99/06)

‛Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark FILDOR — Earlier national semi-figurative mark PHILDAR — Earlier national word mark FILDOR — Earlier international word and semi-figurative marks PHILDAR — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Articles 8(1)(b), 62 and 73 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Articles 8(1)(b), 64 and 75 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009’

Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark — Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 33, 68-85)

Re:

ACTION against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Phildar SA and Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Comercial Jacinto Parera, SA

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark FILDOR for goods in Classes 22 to 26 — Application No 831834

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Phildar SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National and international word and figurative marks FILDOR and PHILDAR for goods in Classes 22 to 26

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the Opposition Division’s decision

Operative part

The Court:

1.

Annuls the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 16 January 2006 (Case R 245/2004-2);

2.

Orders OHIM to pay the costs.
Top