EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0226
Case T-226/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)
Case T-226/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)
Case T-226/08: Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (Alaska)
OJ C 223, 30.8.2008, p. 47–48
(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-226/08)
(2008/C 223/83)
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 1124/2004-4); |
— |
cancel Community trade mark No 505 503 ‘Alaska’ entirely, on account of the existence of absolute grounds for refusal; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs; |
— |
in the alternative to the second head of claim, declare Community trade mark No 505 503 ‘Alaska’ invalid in respect, at least, of the following goods: ‘Mineral and aerated 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: Word mark ‘Alaska’ for goods in class 32 (Community trade mark No 505 503).
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH.
Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: The applicant.
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned granted in part.
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and dismissal of the application for a declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.
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).