Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:495
Date: 2011-09-20
Language of the case: German
Court formation: Second Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 5 January 2009 - Dornbracht v OHIM - Metaform Lucchese (META) (Case T-1/09) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, 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: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy) 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 Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4); Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG. Community trade mark concerned: the word mark 'META' for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271). Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA. Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark 'METAFORM' for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24. Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld. Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed. Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, 1 in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).