- 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-123/08: Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0123
62008TN0123
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 116/27
(Case T-123/08)
(2008/C 116/50)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwalt)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares, LLC (Los Angeles, United States of America)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1);
—reject the opposition entered by Homeland Housewares, LLC, against the word mark for which registration is sought, ‘Magic Butler’ No 4 109 906;
—order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harald Spitzer.
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Magic Butler’ for goods in Classes 7 and 21 (application No 4 109 906)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homeland Housewares, LLC
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 4 100 483) and the word mark ‘THE MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 3 584 885)
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EG) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in conflict.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).