CELEX: 62008TN0400
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-400/08: Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)

22.11.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 301/51
            
         Action brought on 22 September 2008 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
   (Case T-400/08)
   (2008/C 301/87)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 July 2008 in case R 957/2006-4, insofar as it dismisses the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 May 2006 ruling on opposition number B 760 605; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ENERCON’ for goods in classes 1, 2 and 4
   
      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: Community trade mark registration No 137 828 of the word mark ‘ENERGOL’ for goods in classes 1 and 4
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition except for the goods that were found dissimilar
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejected the appeal for the goods that were found dissimilar and dismissed the appeal for the remainder
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.