- 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-483/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0483
62008TN0483
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
24.1.2009
Official Journal of the European Union
C 19/30
(Case T-483/08)
(2009/C 19/58)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (Jalan Merdeka, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Dias Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana, Portugal)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 322 534 of the word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in class 25
Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Opposition Division to the extent that it upheld the opposition for certain goods in class 18 and dismissed the appeal for the reminder
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as well as Rule 15 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rendered a decision pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 while the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal based its opposition only on Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).