CELEX: 62010TN0392
Language: en
Date: 2010-09-06 00:00:00
Title: Case T-392/10: Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)

6.11.2010   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 301/48
            
         Action brought on 6 September 2010 — Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH)
   (Case T-392/10)
   ()
   2010/C 301/77
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   
      Parties
   
   
      Applicant: Euro-Information — Européenne de traitement de l’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 17 June 2010 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 892/2010-2 in so far as it dismissed the application for trade mark No 004114864 in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42;
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant 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: The word mark ‘EURO AUTOMATIC CASH’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 42 — application No 4 114 864.
   
      Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application for registration.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial annulment of the examiner’s decision; partial refusal for registration of the trade mark applied for; decision taken subsequent to the General Court’s judgment in Case T-15/09 Euro-Information v OHIM (EURO AUTOMATIC CASH), judgment of 9 March 2010, not published in the ECR.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 207/2009, as the mark is not descriptive but, on the contrary, is distinctive for all of the goods and services in respect of which registration was refused.