Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2011:454
Date: 2011-09-09
Language of the case: German
Court formation: First Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded;Action for annulment - successful
Origin: Germany

Action brought on 30 September 2009 - ERGO Versicherungsgruppe v OHIM - DeguDent (ERGO) (Case T -382/09) Language in which the application was lodged: German Parties Applicant: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, 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: DeguDent GmbH (Hanau on Main, Germany) Forms of order sought Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 July 2009 in Case R 44/2008-4; Order the defendant or, in the case of an intervention by the other party to the proceedings before the defendant, the intervener to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: ERGO Versicherungsgruppe AG Community trade mark concerned: The word mark 'ERGO' for goods and services in Classes 1 to 45 (Application No 3 292 638) Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DeguDent GmbH Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark No 398 328 80 and the Community trade mark No 1 064 674 'CERGO' for goods in Class 10, the opposition being brought only against the registration for goods in Classes 5 and 10 Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed Pleas in law: Infringement of the first sentence of Article 42(5) in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 64(1) and Article 76(1) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 1, since the Board of Appeal did not fully decide on the appeal; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009, since there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks. ____________ 1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).