Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2012:51
Date: 2012-02-02
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 9 September 2010 - Goutier v OHIM - Eurodata (ARANTAX) (Case T-387/10) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: Klaus Goutier (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (represented by: E.E. Happe, lawyer) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG (Saarbrücken, Germany) Form of order sought Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 July 2010 in Case R 126/2009-4, to the extent that the Community trade mark application was, by setting aside the contested decision, rejected in respect of the following services:Class 35 - Tax consultancy, tax preparation, accounting, auditing, professional business consultancy, business consultancyClass 36 - Fiscal assessments, mergers and acquisitions, namely financial consultancy with regard to the purchase or sale of companies and company shares;Class 42 - Provision of legal services, legal research; Order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: Klaus Goutier. Community trade mark concerned: Word mark 'ARANTAX' for services in Classes 35, 36 and 42. Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurodata GmbH & Co KG. Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark 'ANTAX' for services in Classes 35, 36, 41, 42 and 45. Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial setting aside of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial rejection of the Community trade mark application. Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 15 and 43 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, 1 because proof of use had not been provided, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1)