- 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-243/08: Action brought on 23 June 2008 — Ravensburger v OHIM — Educa Borras (EDUCA Memory game)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0243
62008TN0243
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
15.8.2008
Official Journal of the European Union
C 209/61
(Case T-243/08)
(2008/C 209/110)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Ravensburger AG (Ravensburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, lawyer, and R. Kunze, lawyer and Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Educa Borras SA (Sant Quirze del Valles, Barcelona, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 April 2008 in case R 597/2007-2; and
—Order OHIM to pay the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘EDUCA Memory game’ for goods in class 28 — Community trade mark registration No 495 036
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The international word trade mark ‘MEMORY’ registration No R 393 512; the Benelux word trade mark ‘MEMORY’ registration No 38 328; the German word trade mark ‘MEMORY’ registration No 964 625
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Invalidity of the Community trade mark concerned
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the Cancellation Division
Pleas in law: (i) infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in concluding that the potentially colliding element in the Community trade mark concerned is of purely descriptive nature and thus cannot cause a risk of confusion with the applicant's earlier trade marks; (ii) infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in requiring that applicant prove a risk of confusion; (iii) infringement of Article 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not properly take into account the labelling practice of the relevant market; (iv) infringement of Article 75 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to convene a hearing, as requested by the applicant.