CELEX: 62010TA0585
Language: en
Date: 2012-05-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T-585/10: Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for Community word mark PENTEO — Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)

7.7.2012   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 200/14
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2012 — Aitic Penteo v OHIM — Atos Worldline (PENTEO)
   (Case T-585/10) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PENTEO - Earlier Benelux and international word marks XENTEO - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Articles 75 and 76 of Regulation No 207/2009)
   2012/C 200/28
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Aitic Penteo, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Atos Worldline SA (Brussels, Belgium)
   
      Re:
   
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Chamber of Appeal of OHIM of 23 September 2010 (Case R 774/2010-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Atos Worldline SA and Aitic Penteo, SA.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Aitic Penteo, SA to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 63, 26.2.2011.