CELEX: 62008TA0400
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-13 00:00:00
Title: Case T-400/08: Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark ENERCON — Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) — Partial refusal to register)

6.11.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 301/27
            
         Judgment of the General Court of 13 September 2010 — Enercon v OHIM — BP (ENERCON)
   (Case T-400/08) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark ENERCON - Earlier Community word mark ENERGOL - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) - Partial refusal to register)
   2010/C 301/45
   Language of the case: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: D. Botis, Agent)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: BP plc (London, United Kingdom)
   
      Re:
   
   Action brought against 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 (Case R 957/2006-4), relating to opposition proceedings between BP plc and Enercon GmbH.
   
      Operative part of the judgment
   
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Enercon GmbH to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 301, 22.11.2008.