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-438/07: Action brought on 30 November 2007 — Spa Monopole v OHIM — De Francesco Import (SpagO)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62007TN0438

62007TN0438

January 1, 2007
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

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/26

(Case T-438/07)

(2008/C 37/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV (Spa, Belgium) (represented by: L. de Brouwer, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: De Francesco Import GmbH (Nürnberg, Germany)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 13 September 2007 in Case R 1285/2006-2 and

order the Office to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: De Francesco Import GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SpagO’ for goods in class 33 — application No 2 320 844

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: The Community, national and international word and figurative marks ‘SPA’, ‘SPA Citron’ and ‘SPA Orange’ for goods in class 32

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal underestimated the reputation of SPA in the Benelux and did not take the following factors sufficiently into account:

the oral and visual similarities of the trade marks in question;

the fact that the use of the trade mark ‘SpagO’ for alcoholic beverages would be detrimental to the reputation of the mineral water ‘SPA’, which built its reputation on its high quality, purity and beneficial effects upon health;

the fact that the use of ‘SpagO’ for beverages would take unfair advantage of the reputation of the trade mark ‘SPA’ and its image of quality and purity.

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