Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/54 |

---

Action brought on 15 July 2011 — Basic v OHIM — Repsol YPF (basic)

(Case T-372/11)

2011/C 269/120

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Basic Aktiengesellschaft Lebensmittelhandel (Munich, Germany) (represented by: D. Altenburg, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Repsol YPF, SA (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 31 March 2011 in case R 1440/2010-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Dismiss the appeal in case No R 1440/2010-1 regarding ruling on opposition No B 1384694 |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs of this proceeding. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘basic’, in yellow, blue and red, for goods and services in classes 3, 4, 5, 16, 18, 21, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 43, 44 and 45 — Community trade mark application No 6752811

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5648159 of the figurative mark ‘BASIC’, for services in classes 35, 37 and 39

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services in class 35 and all the contested services in class 39. The opposition was rejected for the remaining services in class 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent it rejected the opposition for part of the services in class 35. Rejected the CTM application for these services and dismissed the appeal for the remaining services in class 35

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly assumed the existence of a likelihood of confusion between the applied mark and the opposed mark.

---

[Top](#document1)