CELEX: 62009TN0001
Language: en
Date: 2009-01-05 00:00:00
Title: Case T-1/09: Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)

21.3.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 69/44
            
         Action brought on 5 January 2009 — Dornbracht v OHIM — Metaform Lucchese (META)
   (Case T-1/09)
   (2009/C 69/98)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: P. Mes, C. Graf von der Groeben, G. Rother, J. Bühling, A. Verhauwen, J. Künzel, D. Jestaedt and M. Bergermann, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Metaform Lucchese SpA (Monsagrati, Italy)
   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 Design) of 3 November 2008 (R 1152/2006-4);
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs including those costs incurred before the Board of Appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aloys F. Dornbracht GmbH & Co. KG.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘META’ for goods in Classes 9, 11, 20 and 21 (Application No 3 081 271).
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Metaform Lucchese SpA.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the figurative mark ‘METAFORM’ for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24 (Community trade mark No 1 765 361), the Italian figurative mark (Trade mark No 587 108) and the international figurative mark (Trade mark No 603 054) also for goods in Classes 6, 11, 20, 21 and 24.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).