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 62006TJ0100

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008.
Deepak Rajani v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark ATOZ - Earlier international word mark ARTOZ - No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use - Starting point for the five-year time-limit - Date of registration of the earlier mark - Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 - Obligation to state the reasons on which a measure is based - Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR.
Case T-100/06.

European Court Reports 2008 II-00287*

ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2008:527





Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 26 November 2008 – Rajani v OHIM – Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)

(Case T-100/06)

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark ATOZ – Earlier international word mark ARTOZ – No requirement to provide evidence of genuine use – Starting point for the five-year time-limit – Date of registration of the earlier mark – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 – Obligation to state the reasons on which the decision is based – Articles 73 and 79 of Regulation No 40/94 and Article 6 of the ECHR

1.                     Community trade mark – Observations of third parties and opposition – Examination of the opposition – Proof of use of the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 43(2) and (3)) (see paras 35, 43-45, 49)

2.                     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 65-66)

Re:

ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 1126/2004-2), concerning opposition proceedings between Artoz Papier AG and Deepak Rajani.

Information relating to the case

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Deepak Rajani

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark ATOZ for services in Classes 35 and 41 – Application No 1319961

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

Artoz-Papier AG

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

International word mark ARTOZ for services in Classes 35 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Appeal dismissed


Operative part

The Court:

1.

Dismisses the action;

2.

Orders Deepak Rajani to pay the costs.

Top