EUR-Lex & EU Commission AI-Powered Semantic Search Engine
Modern Legal
  • Query in any language with multilingual search
  • Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
  • See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Start free trial

Similar Documents

Explore similar documents to your case.

We Found Similar Cases for You

Sign up for free to view them and see the most relevant paragraphs highlighted.

Case T-108/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0108

62008TN0108

January 1, 2008
With Google you find a lot.
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

9.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 116/24

(Case T-108/08)

(2008/C 116/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE (Glyfada, Greece)

Form of order sought

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 298/2007-2;

order the OHIM or the intervener 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 ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 1 709 641

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43, 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, among others as the Board of Appeal has taken into account goods for which the trade mark applied for does not claim protection and on which the opposition was not based; as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the evidence presented by Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE for use of its trade marks; and as the Board of Appeal has considered evidence that the applicant could not evaluate.

EurLex Case Law

AI-Powered Case Law Search

Query in any language with multilingual search
Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly

Get Instant Answers to Your Legal Questions

Cancel your subscription anytime, no questions asked.Start 14-Day Free Trial

At Modern Legal, we’re building the world’s best search engine for legal professionals. Access EU and global case law with AI-powered precision, saving you time and delivering relevant insights instantly.

Contact Us

Tivolska cesta 48, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia