- 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-307/08: Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0307
62008TN0307
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
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 260/15
(Case T-307/08)
(2008/C 260/27)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks, C. Fürsen, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)
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 1199/2007-1; and
—Order the defendant to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘4 OUT Living’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 604 969 of the figurative mark ‘Living & Co’ for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition partially
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there is a risk of confusion between the trade marks concerned.