Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62008TN0225

    Case T-225/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)

    OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, 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)

    30.8.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 223/47


    Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)

    (Case T-225/08)

    (2008/C 223/82)

    Language in which the application was lodged: German

    Parties

    Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, 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: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany)

    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 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004-4);

    Completely delete the Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ owing to the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

    Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

    In the alternative to the second application, declare Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ invalid at least in respect of the following goods: ‘Mineral waters and carbonated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks in Class 32’.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘ALASKA’ for goods in Class 32 (Community trade mark No 505 552)

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH

    Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for the declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).


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


    Top