- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-351/08: Action brought on 25 August 2008 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Schnitzler and Barranco Rodriguez (MATRATZEN CONCORD)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0351
62008TN0351
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 285/45
(Case T-351/08)
(2008/C 285/84)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: J. Albrecht, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain) and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez (Sant Just Desvern)
Form of order sought
—annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 May 2008 (Case R 1034/2007-2);
—order OHIM to pay the costs, including those of the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark ‘MATRATZEN CONCORD’ for goods in Classes 10, 20 and 24 (Application No 3 355 369)
Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Pablo Barranco Schnitzler and Mariano Barranco Rodriguez
Mark or sign cited in opposition: national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Class 20
Decision of the Opposition Division: Refusal of the application for a Community trade mark
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, and infringement of Article 43(2) of that regulation, in that no proof has been provided of genuine use of the mark cited in opposition.