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-34/10: Action brought on 26 January 2010 — Hairdreams v OHIM — Bartmann (MAGIC LIGHT)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62010TN0034

62010TN0034

January 26, 2010
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

17.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 100/46

(Case T-34/10)

2010/C 100/71

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: ‘Hairdreams’ HaarhandelsgmbH (Graz, Austria) (represented by: G. Kresbach, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rüdiger Bartmann (Gladbeck, Germany)

Form of order sought

Amend the contested decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 November 2009 in Case R 656/2008-4 so that the applicant’s appeal of 22 April 2008 is upheld in its entirety and that the defendant is ordered to pay the costs of the opposition proceedings, the appeal and the present action;

in the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer it back to OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Hairdreams HaarhandelsgmbH

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘MAGIC LIGHT’ for goods in Classes 3, 8, 10, 21, 22, 26 and 44 (Application No 5 196 597)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Rüdiger Bartmann

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the German word mark ‘MAGIC LIFE’ No 30 415 611 for goods in Class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 (1) on the ground that the Board of Appeal erred in law in its assessment of the likelihood of confusion

Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

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