- 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-303/08: Action brought on 30 July 2008 — Tresplain Investments v OHIM — Hoo Hing (Golden Elephant Brand)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0303
62008TN0303
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
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/14
(Case T-303/08)
(2008/C 260/26)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Tresplain Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: D. McFarland, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom)
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 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1; 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 figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registration No 241 810
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
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which had been in use in the United Kingdom
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by taking into account alleged facts, as well as legal presumptions and assumptions that had not been introduced or substantiated by the parties, while at the same time it refused to take into account other facts, evidence and arguments advanced by the applicant; infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was a likelihood of relevant confusion between the trade marks concerned and, as a result, a likelihood of damage.