This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0361
Case T-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
Case T-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
Case T-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
IO C 301, 22.11.2008, p. 42–42
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 27/08/2008
- Date lodged:
- 27/08/2008
- Author:
- Cúirt Chéadchéime
- Form:
- Faisnéis bhreithiúnach
- Authentic language:
- Gearmáinis
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Instruments cited in case law:
-
- 31994R0040: A08P1PTB)
- Link
|
22.11.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 301/42 |
Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
(Case T-361/08)
(2008/C 301/71)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, 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: Thailand
Form of order sought
|
— |
annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008 |
|
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicants
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.
