- 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-72/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Travel Servis v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0072
62008TN0072
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
26.4.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 107/32
(Case T-72/08)
(2008/C 107/53)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Travel Service a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG (Dortmund, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Alter the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1515/2006-2 as follows:
—annul the Opposition Division decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 782 351 of 29 September 2006 in its entirety;
—order the opponent to bear the costs incurred by the applicant with respect to the opposition and the appeal proceedings before the OHIM.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘smartWings’ for goods and services in classes 16, 21, 37, 39, 41 and 43 — Application No 3 650 595
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG
Mark or sign cited: The national and international word mark ‘EuroWings’ for goods and services in classes 16 and 41, the national and international word mark ‘EUROWINGS’ for goods and services in classes 39 and 42 and the national word mark ‘WINGSGLASS’ for goods and services in classes 16, 39, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of essential procedural requirements enshrined in Articles 73 and 79 CTMR.