EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0449
Case T-449/08: Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
Case T-449/08: Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
Case T-449/08: Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
OJ C 327, 20.12.2008, p. 36–36
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
20.12.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 327/36 |
Action brought on 2 October 2008 — S.L.V. Elektronik v OHIM — Jiménez Muñoz (LINE)
(Case T-449/08)
(2008/C 327/64)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: S.L.V. Elektronik GmbH (Übach-Palenberg, Germany) (represented by: C. König, 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: Angel Jiménez Muñoz (Gelida, Spain)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 18 July 2008 in Case R 759/2007-4 in so far as registration of the trade mark applied for (003316908) is refused in respect of ‘mains-operated lights, lighting apparatus and installations, stage effects lighting apparatus; electric lamps; individual parts for the aforesaid goods’; and order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court of First Instance. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: S.L.V. Elektronik GmbH
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘LINE’ for goods in class 11 — registration No 3 316 908
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Angel Jiménez Muñoz
Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative and word marks ‘Line’ for goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37 and 38
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment in part of the decision of the Opposition Division
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal did not proceed on the basis of the trade mark applied for but on the basis of a design that was not identical.