- 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-379/08: Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0379
62008TN0379
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-379/08)
(2008/C 313/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Mustang-Bekleidungswerke GmbH + Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Weimer, 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: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2008 in Case R 859/2007-4;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including the applicant's costs in both proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mustang
Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a wavy line for goods and services in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 081 352)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Decathlon SA
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Existing national and international figurative mark constituted by the representation of a white wavy line on a black background, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, because there are no aural, visual and conceptual similarities between the opposing marks that could give rise to a likelihood of confusion.