- 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-493/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Sun World International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import (SUPERIOR SEEDLESS)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0493
62008TN0493
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 19/33
(Case T-493/08)
(2009/C 19/62)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Sun World International LLC (Bakersfield, United States) (represented by: M. Holah, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg, Germany)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 3 September 2008 in case R 1378/2007-1; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘SUPERIOR SEEDLESS’ for goods in class 31 — Community trade mark registration No 610 980
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial invalidity of the Community trade mark concerned
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly identified the relevant public; (ii) wrongly refused to allow a withdrawal of the Community trade mark registration in respect of some of the goods in the specification; (iii) made an unlawful assumption based on the lack of a United Kingdom or Irish registration; and (iv) incorrectly assessed the evidence filed.