EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-374/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0374

62008TN0374

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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

6.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/35

(Case T-374/08)

(2008/C 313/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Illinois Tools Works, Inc. (Glenview, United States)

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 25 June 2008 in Case No R 952/2007-2;

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOP CRAFT’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3 (Application No 3 444 767)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Illinois Tools Works, Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative marks ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision in so far as the opposition in respect of the goods ‘Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry’ in Class 1 was upheld

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 because:

the documents submitted by the opponent cannot prove use of the opposing marks,

there are significant graphical differences between the marks at issue,

the word element ‘TOP’ is not descriptive and of slight distinctive character, and

owing to the clear graphical differences and the additional word element ‘TOP’ in the mark applied for, a likelihood of confusion may be ruled out even if the goods are identical or similar.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia