ECLI:EU:C:2010:384•Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2010.#Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).#Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Earlier mark 'sensixx' - Word mark 'Centrixx' - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Application for revocation of an earlier mark - Proceedings pending before the national courts - Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court.#Case C-448/09 P.
Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 30 June 2010.#Royal Appliance International GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).#Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) - Earlier mark 'sensixx' - Word mark 'Centrixx' - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Application for revocation of an earlier mark - Proceedings pending before the national courts - Request for a stay of the proceedings before the General Court.#Case C-448/09 P.
ECLI:EU:C:2010:384Eu Chamb 05 CJun 30, 2010
Full text
Subject of the case
Operative part
Subject of the case
Re:
Appeal brought against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 15 September 2009 in Case T-446/09 Royal Appliance International v OHIM – BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte , by which the Court of First Instance dismissed the action for annulment brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007, rejecting the registration of the word mark ‘Centrixx’ as a Community trade mark for certain goods in Class 7, by granting the opposition by the proprietor of the national word mark ‘sensixx’ – Failure to stay the proceedings while awaiting the resolution of the dispute pending before the national courts concerning the application for revocation of the earlier mark – Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 – Likelihood of confusion between two marks.
Operative part
Operative part:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. Royal Appliance International GmbH is ordered to pay the costs.
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.