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-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0361

62008TN0361

January 1, 2008
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

22.11.2008

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/42

(Case T-361/08)

(2008/C 301/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thailand

Form of order sought

annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicants

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.

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