- 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-418/07: Action brought on 19 November 2007 — LIBRO v OHIM — Causley (LiBRO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0418
62007TN0418
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
12.1.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 8/27
(Case T-418/07)
(2008/C 8/48)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Guntramsdorf, Austria) (represented by: G. Prantl, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dagmar Causley (Pleidesheim, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 3 September 2007 (Case 1454/2005-4) and alter it so as to allow the applicant's appeal lodged with the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and as a consequence to reject the objection in its entirety;
—Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any interveners jointly to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: LIBRO Handelsgesellschaft mbH
Community trade mark concerned: the word and figurative mark ‘LiBRO’ for goods and services in classes 2, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 616 753).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Dagmar Causley.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark ‘LIBERO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 (Community trade mark No 401 141).
Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the application.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion of the opposing trade marks.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).