Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
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

Document 62007TN0424

Case T-424/07: Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

OJ C 8, 12.1.2008, p. 29–29 (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 8/29

Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

(Case T-424/07)

(2008/C 8/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (Johnston, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

—

The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2007 in Case R 288/2007-2 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 893 053 ‘OPTIMUM’ be annulled;

—

defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMUM’ for goods in class 1 — application No 4 893 053

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 by not taking into consideration the fact that the goods in question address a specialised public and by not supporting the decision on evidence of use of the trade mark applied for.

Top