Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 17.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 100/45 |

---

Action brought on 25 January 2010 — Alibaba Group v OHIM — allpay.net (ALIPAY)

(Case T-26/10)

2010/C 100/69

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Alibaba Group Holding Limited (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: allpay.net.Limited (Hereford, United Kingdom)

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 5 November 2009 in case R 1790/2008-1, as far as the appeal was dismissed; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ALIPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42

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: Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ALLPAY.NET’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 36, 38 and 42; United Kingdom trade mark registration of a series of word marks containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 40 and 42; unregistered earlier marks or signs containing the word ‘ALLPAY’, used in the course of trade in the United Kingdom

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for all the contested goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal partially

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly found that there was likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---

[Top](#document1)