- 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-308/08: Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Parfums Christian Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0308
62008TN0308
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
11.10.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/15
(Case T-308/08)
(2008/C 260/28)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Cornu, D. Moreau and F. de Visscher, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consolidated Artists B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)
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 23 May 2008 in case R 1162/2007-2; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MANGO adorably’ for goods in class 3
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: French trade mark registration No 33 209 849 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for goods in class 3; French trade mark registration No 94 536 564 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 811 001 of the word mark ‘ADIORABLE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3; international trade mark registration No 687 422 of the word mark ‘J'ADORE’ for various goods, amongst which goods in class 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was no likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned and that the use of the trade mark applied for would not take unfair advantage of the reputation of earlier trade marks, on the wrong reasoning that under both legal grounds the trade marks concerned are not sufficiently similar.