Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 27.2.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/35 |

---

Action brought on 11 December 2009 — Inovis v OHIM — Sonaecom (INOVIS)

(Case T-502/09)

2010/C 51/68

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Inovis, Inc. (Alpharetta, United States) (represented by: R. Black and B. Ladas, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sonaecom — Serviços de Communicações, S.A. (Maia, Portugal)

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 14 September 2009 in case R 1691/2008-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Direct the Board of Appeal of the defendant to register the application for the Community trade mark; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order the defendant to bear its own costs and those of the applicant. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “INOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 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: Portuguese trade mark registration of the word mark “NOVIS”, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly: (i) ignored the clear differences between the respective goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned, including that it erroneously considered that the earlier mark covered classes 9 and 42, whereas registration for such classes was refused by the Portuguese Trade mark Office, and that, in any event, such registration was not substantiated during the proceedings; (ii) ignored the clear conceptual differences between the trade marks concerned; and (iii) held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

---

[Top](#document1)