This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62010TN0522
Case T-522/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
Case T-522/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
Case T-522/10: Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
OJ C 13, 15.1.2011, p. 33–33
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
15.1.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 13/33 |
Action brought on 8 November 2010 — Hell Energy v OHIM — Hansa Mineralbrunnen (HELL)
(Case T-522/10)
()
2011/C 13/63
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Hell Energy Magyarország kft (Budapest, Hungary) (represented by: M. Treis, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hansa Mineralbrunnen GmbH (Rellingen, Germany)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 August 2010 in case R 1517/2009-1; |
— |
Allow the registration of the Community trade mark application No 5937107; and |
— |
Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to bear the costs of the current proceedings as well as those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘HELL’, for goods in class 32 — Community trade mark application No 5937107
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: Community trade mark registration No 5135331 of the word mark ‘Hella’, for goods in class 32
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal and the Opposition Division erred in their decisions in finding a likelihood of confusion.