This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62011TN0514
Case T-514/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)
Case T-514/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)
Case T-514/11: Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)
IO C 355, 3.12.2011, p. 21–22
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
3.12.2011 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 355/21 |
Action brought on 28 September 2011 — i-content v OHIM — Decathlon (BETWIN)
(Case T-514/11)
2011/C 355/39
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: i-content Ltd Zweigniederlassung Deutschland (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A. Nordemann, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)
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 30 June 2011 in case R 1816/2010-1, and reject the opposition No B 001494205; |
|
— |
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 ‘BETWIN’, among others for goods in classes 25, 26 and 28 — Community trade mark application No 7281652
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 6780951, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, among others for goods in classes 25 and 28; French trade mark registration No 23191414, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 25; French trade mark registration No 99822017, of the figurative mark ‘bTwin’, inter alia for goods in class 28
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
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 the marks in dispute are confusingly similar.