CELEX: 62009TN0336
Language: en
Date: 2009-08-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-336/09: Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)

24.10.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 256/32
            
         Action brought on 25 August 2009 — Häfele v OHIM — Topcom Europe (Topcom)
   (Case T-336/09)
   2009/C 256/57
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicants: Häfele GmbH & Co. KG (Nagold, Germany) (represented by: J. Dönch, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Topcom Europe NV (Heverlee, Belgium)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Repeal the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 5 June 2009 in case R 1500/2008-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to bear the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “Topcom”, for goods in classes 7, 9 and 11
   
      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 of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark “TOPCOM” for goods in class 9.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the appeal, allowed the opposition and annulled the decision of the Opposition Division
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned, due to the fact that the goods in question are not similar nor complementary.