Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.3.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 72/22 |

---

Action brought on 29 December 2010 — Eurocool Logistik GmbH v OHIM — Lenger (EUROCOOL)

(Case T-599/10)

2011/C 72/37

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Eurocool Logistik GmbH (Linz, Austria) (represented by: G. Secklehner, 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: Peter Lenger (Weinheim, Germany)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul in full the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 October 2010 in Case R 451/2010-1 in which the Opposition Division’s decision of 27 January 2010 in opposition proceedings No B 751 570 is confirmed, reject the opposition and refer the trade mark back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market for continuation of the registration proceedings and order the defendant to bear all the costs associated with the present legal dispute, in particular the costs of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eurocool Logistik GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EUROCOOL’ for services in Classes 39 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Peter Lenger.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark which contains the word element ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ for services in Classes 35 and 39, and the company name ‘EUROCOOL LOGISTICS’ used for specific services in national trade.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 63(2) and Article 75, second sentence, of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009,[(1)](#ntr1-C_2011072EN.01002201-E0001) since the applicant in the opposition proceedings was not afforded the opportunity to reply to the other party’s reasoning for the opposition in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, and infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because there is no likelihood of confusion of the marks at issue.

---

[Top](#document1)