Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 6.11.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/50 |

---

Action brought on 13 September 2010 — Grebenshikova v OHIM — Volvo Trademark (SOLVO)

(Case T-394/10)

()

2010/C 301/79

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russian Federation) (represented by: M. Björkenfeldt, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Göteborg, Sweden)

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 9 June 2010 in case R 861/2010-1; and |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’, for goods in class 9

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: United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 747361 of the figurative mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; United Kingdom trade mark registrations No 1552528, No 1102971, No 1552529 and No 747362 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for a wide range of goods and services; Community trade mark registrations No 2361087 and No 2347193 of the word mark ‘VOLVO’, for inter alia goods and services in classes 9 and 12

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division and rejected the trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly applied the provisions of this Article; violation by the Board of Appeal of a general principle of EU law regarding equal treatment and violation of Article 1 of the Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects on Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), as well as violation of Article 2 of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

---

[Top](#document1)