- 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-298/08: Action brought on 31 July 2008 — Aldi v OHIM — Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes (ALDI)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62008TN0298
62008TN0298
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
27.9.2008
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 247/20
(Case T-298/08)
(2008/C 247/40)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Aldi GmbH & Co. KG (Mülheim an der Ruhr, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and 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 of OHIM: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA (Barcelona, Spain)
Form of order sought
—Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 14 May 2008 (Case No R 1301/2007-1);
—Order the defendant to pay all the costs.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant.
Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘ALDI’ for goods and services in Classes 35, 38, and 39 (application No 3 360 914).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Catalana de Telecomunicacions Societat Operadora de Xarxes, SA.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 38 (Mark No 2 262 920), the Spanish word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Class 39 (Mark No 2 262 921) and the international word mark ‘ALPI’ for services in Classes 37, 38, 39 and 42 (Mark No 789 344), opposition being filed to registration for services in Class 38.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.
Plea in law: Infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks.
(1) Council Regulation No 40/94 0f 20 December 1991 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).