Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 8.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/44 |

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)

(Case T-489/07)

(2008/C 64/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Insight Direct USA, Inc. (Tempe, United States) (represented by: M. Gilbert and M. Moore, Solicitors)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Net Insight AB (Stockholm, Sweden)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 20 September 2007 in Case R 1428/2006-2 shall be annulled and the rejection of the application for all services in classes 37 and 42 and the rejected services in class 35 be overturned and the application be allowed to proceed in respect of all of the services for which the application was published. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The Office and other parties shall bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Insight’ for services in classes 35, 36, 37 and 42 — application No 3 309 002

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Net Insight AB

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word mark ‘NET INSIGHT’ for goods and services in classes 9, 37 and 41

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld and partially rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal wrongly identified the dominant and distinctive elements of the earlier mark and did not give consideration to all the relevant factors in assessing the similarity of the relevant goods and services. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal failed to consider all the relevant factors in relation to the global appreciation test when determining the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.

---

[Top](#document1)