CELEX: 62009TN0425
Language: en
Date: 2009-10-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-425/09: Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)

19.12.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 312/39
            
         Action brought on 14 October 2009 — Honda Motor v OHIM — Blok (BLAST)
   (Case T-425/09)
   2009/C 312/64
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Honda Motor Co., Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hendrik Blok (Oudenaarde, Belgium)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 16 July 2009 in case R 1097/2008-1;
            
         
               —
            
            
               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 ‘BLAST’, for goods in classes 7 and 12
   
      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 ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37; Benelux trade mark registration of the word mark ‘BLAST’ for goods and services in classes 7, 35 and 37
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Allowed the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned.