This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0183
Case T-183/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
Case T-183/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
Case T-183/08: Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
OJ C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 47–47
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
5.7.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/47 |
Action brought on 16 May 2008 — Schuhpark Fascies v OHIM — Leder & Schuh (jello SCHUHPARK)
(Case T-183/08)
(2008/C 171/89)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH (Warendorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Peter and J. Braune, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Leder & Schuh AG (Graz, Austria)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 13 March 2008 in appeal proceedings R 1560/2006-4; |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the applicant. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG.
Community trade mark concerned: The word and figurative mark ‘jello SCHUHPARK’ for goods in Classes 1, 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24-26 and 28 (Application No 1 269 372).
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Schuhpark Fascies GmbH.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The German word mark ‘Schuhpark’ for goods in Class 25 (No 1 007 149), in respect of opposition to the registration for goods in Classes 18, 21, 25 and 26.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part and application rejected in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the appealed decision and rejection of the opposition.
Pleas in law: Infringement of the second sentence of Article 43(2) and Article 43(3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and breach of the second sentence of Rule 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 (2) in that the applicant has sufficiently proved that the opposition mark has been used in a manner which preserves its rights.
(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).