Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2010:430
Date: 2010-10-07
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Action brought on 22 June 2009 - Accenture Global Services v OHIM - Silver Creek Properties (acsensa) (Case T-244/09) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicants: Accenture Global Services GmbH (Shaffhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silver Creek Properties SA (Panama, Panama) Form of order sought Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 802/2008-2; Annul the decision of the Trade Marks Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2008 in opposition No B 1019274; and Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark "acsensa", for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 33, 41 and 42 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration for the word mark "ACCENTURE" for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark "accenture" for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark "ACCENTURE" for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark "accenture" for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly ignored statements of fact submitted by the applicant. ____________