CELEX: 62010TN0088
Language: en
Date: 2010-02-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-88/10: Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)

1.5.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 113/59
            
         Action brought on 15 February 2010 — Inter IKEA Systems v OHIM — Meteor Controls (GLÄNSA)
   (Case T-88/10)
   2010/C 113/91
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Inter IKEA Systems B.V. (Delft, The Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meteor Controls International Limited (Cookstown, Ireland)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 1 December 2009 in case R 529/2009-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred both in these proceedings and in the proceedings before it.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GLÄNSA”, for goods in class 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 “GLANZ”, for goods in classes 6, 9 and 11
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the trade mark applied for in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal failed to make a correct global assessment and comparison of the trade marks concerned, thereby wrongly finding that these were similar and, as a result, that there was a likelihood of confusion between them.