CELEX: 62011TN0451
Language: en
Date: 2011-08-08 00:00:00
Title: Case T-451/11: Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)

8.10.2011   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 298/26
            
         Action brought on 8 August 2011 — Giga-Byte Technology v OHIM — Haskins (Gigabyte)
   (Case T-451/11)
   2011/C 298/48
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Giga-Byte Technology Co., Ltd (Taipei, Taiwan) (represented by: F. Schwerbrock, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Robert A. Haskins (Pennsylvania, USA)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Dismiss the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 May 2011 in case R 2047/2010-2, as well as the decision of the Opposition Division
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Gigabyte’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 42 — Community trade mark application No 5550009
   
      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: Community trade mark registration No 4954095 of the word mark ‘GIGABITER’, for services in classes 39, 40 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Section 9(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal wrongly concluded that the contested services in classes 37 and 42 are similar to the opponent’s services in class 42.