- 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-53/09: Action brought on 11 February 2009 — Cafea v OHIM — Christian (BEST FARM)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0053
62009TN0053
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
18.4.2009
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 90/30
(Case T-53/09)
2009/C 90/47
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Cafea GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: C. Schumann and M. Hartmann, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Dieter Christian (Frankfurt, Germany)
Form of order sought
—annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 27 November 2008 in Case R 420/2008-1;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings;
—order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings and the appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dieter Christian
Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘BEST FARM’ for goods in Classes 29, 30, 31 and 32 (Registration No 3 089 281)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the applicant acting under its previous corporate name KORD Beiteiligungsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘BESTFORM’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 29, 30, 32, 33 and 42 (No 300 563 34)
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), because there exists a likelihood of confusion, or at least a likelihood of association, between the conflicting marks
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/941 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)