This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0408
Case T-408/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
Case T-408/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
Case T-408/07: Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
OJ C 8, 12.1.2008, p. 22–23
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
12.1.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 8/22 |
Action brought on 7 November 2007 — Crunch Fitness International v OHIM — ILG (CRUNCH)
(Case T-408/07)
(2008/C 8/40)
Language of the case: English
Parties
Applicant: Crunch Fitness International Inc. (New York, United States) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ILG Ltd (Dun Laoghaire, Ireland)
Form of order sought
— |
The decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal in relation to class 41 of the CTM be annulled; |
— |
the CTM remain registered for services in class 41; and |
— |
order that OHIM pay its costs both in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings before OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘CRUNCH’ for goods and services in classes 9, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark No 62 083
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: ILG Ltd
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark for the goods and services in classes 9 and 25
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark also for the services in class 41
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 50(1)(a), alternatively Article 50(2), of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that there was no genuine use of the trade mark in question in the Community in connection with the services in class 41.