Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2008:489
Date: 2008-11-12
Language of the case: English
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 23 July 2007 - ecoblue v OHIM - BBVA (Ecoblue) (Case T-281/07) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: ecoblue AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Osterrieth and T. Schmitz, lawyers) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA Form of order sought annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 April 2007 in Case No R 844/2006-1; reject the opposition filed by Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A. against the 'Ecoblue' word mark applied for; order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant. Community trade mark concerned: The word mark 'Ecoblue' for services in Classes 35, 36 and 38 (application No 2 871 598). Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, SA. Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word marks 'BLUE' (Community trade mark No 1 345 974), 'BLUE JOVEN' (Community trade mark No 2 065 100), 'BLUE BBVA' (Community trade mark No 2 065 621), 'TARJETA BLUE BBVA' (Community trade mark No 2 277 291), 'QNTAME BLUE' (Community trade mark No 2 391 878), 'HIPOTECA BLUE' (Community trade mark No 2 392 181), 'HIPOTECA BLUE JOVEN' (Community trade mark No 2 794 998) and 'MOTOR BLUE JOVEN' (Community trade mark No 3 060 878). Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and application for registration rejected. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed. Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, 1 since the opposing marks are not similar and there is therefore no likelihood of confusion. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).