- 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-256/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0256
62008TN0256
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
15.8.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 209/66
(Case T-256/08)
(2008/C 209/116)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Chicago, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and A. Bognár, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mejerigaarden Holding A/S (Thisted, Denmark)
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 15 April 2008 in case R 845/2006-2; and
—Order the defendant 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 ‘POLAR ICE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 30
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: Community trade mark registration No 1 273 564 of the figurative mark ‘Polar is’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1971 03528 of the word mark ‘POLAR IS’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1994 07979 of the word mark ‘POLAR MAXI’ for goods in class 30
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks show relevant visual, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarities to avoid any likelihood of confusion.