- 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-112/06: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 January 2008 — Inter-Ikea OHIM — Waibel (idea) (Community trade mark — Invalidity proceedings — Community figurative mark idea — Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks IKEA — Relative ground for invalidity — No likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62006TA0112
62006TA0112
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
23.2.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 51/42
(Case T-112/06)
(Community trade mark - Invalidity proceedings - Community figurative mark ‘idea’ - Earlier Community and national figurative and word marks ‘IKEA’ - Relative ground for invalidity - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) and Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
(2008/C 51/77)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Inter-Ikea Systems BV, (Delft, Netherlands) (represented by: J. Gulliksson and J. Olsson, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, Agent)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM and intervener before the Court of First Instance: Walter Waibel (Dingolfing, Germany) (represented by: A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)
Re:
Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 10 February 2006 (Case R 80/2005-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Inter Ikea Systems BV and Walter Waibel.
Operative part of the judgment
The Court:
1.Dismisses the action;
2.Orders Inter-Ikea Systems BV to pay the costs, including those incurred by Walter Waibel in the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.
(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.