Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 15.8.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/29 |

---

Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (acsensa)

(Case T-244/09)

2009/C 193/46

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicants: Accenture Global Services GmbH (Shaffhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silver Creek Properties SA (Panama, Panama)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 802/2008-2; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Annul the decision of the Trade Marks Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2008 in opposition No B 1019274; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘acsensa’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 33, 41 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration for the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly ignored statements of fact submitted by the applicant.

---

[Top](#document1)