CELEX: 62009TN0451
Language: en
Date: 2009-11-09 00:00:00
Title: Case T-451/09: Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)

30.1.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 24/56
            
         Action brought on 9 November 2009 — Wind v OHIM — Sanyang Industry (Wind)
   (Case T-451/09)
   2010/C 24/101
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Harry Wind (Selfkant, Germany) (represented by: J. Sroka, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanyang Industry Co. Ltd (Hsinchu, Taiwan)
   
      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 Designs) of 3 September 2009 in case R 1470/2008-4; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark “Wind”, for goods and services in classes 11, 12 and 37
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the figurative mark “Wind”, for services in class 37
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/04 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal failed to conclude that there was similarity between the goods and services covered by the Community trade mark concerned.