Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TN0072

    Case T-72/08: Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Travel Servis v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)

    OJ C 107, 26.4.2008, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    26.4.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 107/32


    Action brought on 11 February 2008 — Travel Servis v OHIM — Eurowings Luftverkehrs (smartWings)

    (Case T-72/08)

    (2008/C 107/53)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Travel Service a.s. (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: S. Hejdová)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG (Dortmund, Germany)

    Form of order sought

    Alter the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1515/2006-2 as follows:

    annul the Opposition Division decision relating to opposition proceedings No B 782 351 of 29 September 2006 in its entirety;

    order the opponent to bear the costs incurred by the applicant with respect to the opposition and the appeal proceedings before the OHIM.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

    Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark ‘smartWings’ for goods and services in classes 16, 21, 37, 39, 41 and 43 — Application No 3 650 595

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eurowings Luftverkehrs AG

    Mark or sign cited: The national and international word mark ‘EuroWings’ for goods and services in classes 16 and 41, the national and international word mark ‘EUROWINGS’ for goods and services in classes 39 and 42 and the national word mark ‘WINGSGLASS’ for goods and services in classes 16, 39, 41 and 42

    Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in part

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and of essential procedural requirements enshrined in Articles 73 and 79 CTMR.


    Top