- 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 C-488/08 P: Appeal brought on 12 November2008 by Matthias Rath against the order of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) delivered on 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06 Matthias Rath v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008CN0488
62008CN0488
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 82/9
—
(Case C-488/08 P)
(2009/C 82/16)
Language of the case: German
Parties
Applicant: Matthias Rath (represented by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, Rechtsanwälte)
Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Form of order sought
—set aside the order of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of First Instance of 8 September 2008 in Case T-373/06;
—grant the form of order sought at first instance;
—order OHIM and the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
In its contested order, the Court of First Instance confirmed the decision of the First Board of Appeal, according to which, with regard to food supplements and dietetic substances for non-medical purposes, there is a likelihood of confusion between the word mark ‘EPICAN’ notified by the appellant and the earlier Community word mark ‘EPIGRAN’.
The appellant bases his appeal on an infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94. The Court of First Instance, he claims, based its assessment of the similarity between the goods and signs on factual mistakes. If the Court of First Instance had correctly assessed the facts, it would necessarily have concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs. This is so, in particular, because, as the Court of First Instance correctly held, consumers accord an increased level of attention to the goods which are the subject of the dispute.
—