CELEX: 62010TN0028
Language: en
Date: 2010-01-26 00:00:00
Title: Case T-28/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT)

27.3.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 80/37
            
         Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT)
   (Case T-28/10)
   2010/C 80/62
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by A. Grolée, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Form of order sought
   
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 November 2009 in Case R 635/2009-2 inasmuch as it dismissed the trade mark application No 7 077 654 for the goods and services which are the subject of this action;
            
         
               —
            
            
               grant Community trade mark application ‘EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT’ No 7 077 654 for all goods and services refused in Classes 9 and 36;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order OHIM to pay the applicant’s costs incurred in the proceedings before OHIM and in the present action, pursuant to Article 87 of the Rules of Procedure.
            
         
      Pleas in law and main arguments
   
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC PAYMENT’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42 and 45 (Application for registration No 7 077 654).
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the registration.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 because, for all the goods and services refused for registration, the mark applied for is not descriptive but distinctive.