Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 26.2.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/30 |

---

Action brought on 17 December 2010 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)

(Case T-585/10)

2011/C 63/57

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Atos Worldline SA (Bruxelles, Belgium)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Modify the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1 and grant the Community trade mark application No 5480561 |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | In the alternative, annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 23 September 2010 in case R 774/2010-1; and |

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PENTEO’, for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5480561

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 in opposition: Benelux trade mark registration No 772120 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42; International trade mark registration No 863851 of the word mark ‘XENTEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36, 37, 38 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant considers that the contested decision infringes: (i) Article 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which prohibits any discrimination, requiring an equal treatment accordingly with the law, (ii) Article 9 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded the prior rights of the applicant, (iii) Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal disregarded facts and evidences submitted in due time by the applicant, and (iv) Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal erred in assessment of likelihood of confusion.

---

[Top](#document1)