This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0434
Case T-434/07: Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
Case T-434/07: Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
Case T-434/07: Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
OJ C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 25–25
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
9.2.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 37/25 |
Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)
(Case T-434/07)
(2008/C 37/39)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russia)
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 2 August 2007 in Case No R 1240/2006-2; and |
— |
order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Elena Grebenshikova
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application No 3 555 422
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word and figurative mark ‘VOLVO’ for, inter alia, goods and services in classes 9 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the trade marks in question are visually and phonetically similar and as the Board of Appeal did not take all relevant factors, including the identity of the goods concerned and the reputation of VOLVO, into account.