15.8.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 193/29 |
Action brought on 22 June 2009 — Accenture Global Services v OHIM — Silver Creek Properties (acsensa)
(Case T-244/09)
2009/C 193/46
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicants: Accenture Global Services GmbH (Shaffhausen, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Silver Creek Properties SA (Panama, Panama)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 March 2009 in case R 802/2008-2; |
— |
Annul the decision of the Trade Marks Department of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 March 2008 in opposition No B 1019274; and |
— |
Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal 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 ‘acsensa’, for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 36, 38, 33, 41 and 42
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration for the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; German trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘ACCENTURE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the figurative mark ‘accenture’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Articles 75 and 76 of Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly ignored statements of fact submitted by the applicant.