Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document 62008TN0222

Case T-222/08: Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 46–46 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

30.8.2008   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/46

Action brought on 9 June 2008 — Sanatur v OHIM — Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim (life light)

(Case T-222/08)

(2008/C 223/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Sanatur GmbH (Singen, Germany) (represented by: M. Wiume, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG (Trier, Germany)

Form of order sought

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 March 2008 in Case R 1257/2006-1;

—

Alter that decision so that the appeal is dismissed;

—

Order the intervener to pay the costs of the proceedings, including the costs of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sanatur GmbH.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘life light’ for goods in Class 32 (Application No 3 192 481).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sektkellerei Schloss Wachenheim AG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German figurative mark ‘LIGHT live’ for goods in Class 32 (Mark No 302 00 216).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annul the decision of the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that no likelihood of confusion exists between the conflicting marks.

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Top