- 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-440/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion (1-2-3.TV)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0440
62008TN0440
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 327/34
(Case T-440/08)
(2008/C 327/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: 1-2-3.TV GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde und E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainz, Germany) and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1); and
—order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘1-2-3.TV’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Application No 3 763 133
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘1, 2 ODER 3 ZDF-ORF-SFDRS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 38, 41 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition on account of the differing overall impression of the marks.