Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62007TN0450

    Case T-450/07: Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick)

    IO C 37, 9.2.2008, p. 32–32 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    9.2.2008   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 37/32


    Action brought on 3 December 2007 — Harwin International v OHIM — Cuadrado (Pickwick)

    (Case T-450/07)

    (2008/C 37/50)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Harwin International LLC (Albany, United States) (represented by: D. Przedborski, lawyer)

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

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado SA (Paterna, Spain)

    Form of order sought

    Annulment of the decision of the OHIM's Second Board of Appeal in Case R 1245/2006-2, rendered on 10 September 2007;

    order the defendant and Cuadrado SA to bear their own costs and to reimburse the costs incurred by the applicant.

    Pleas in law and main arguments

    Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The figurative trade mark containing the word components ‘PICKWICK COLOUR GROUP’ for goods and services in Class 25 — application No 826669

    Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Harwin International LLC

    Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Cuadrado SA

    Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The earlier national word mark ‘PICK OUIC, CUADRADO SA, VALENCIA’ and the figurative trade mark containing the word elements ‘Pick Ouic’ for goods in class 25

    Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declared the mark applied for invalid in its entirety

    Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

    Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 56(2) and (3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

    The applicant claims that the Board's finding as to the non-examination by the Cancellation Division of the evidence submitted by Cuadrado is inconsistent and contrary to law. Furthermore, the applicant submits that there is no likelihood of confusion between the trademarks concerned.


    Top