Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2007/042/44

Case T-372/06: Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Bomba Energia Getränke v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)

IO C 42, 24.2.2007, p. 25–25 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.2.2007   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/25

Action brought on 11 December 2006 — Bomba Energia Getränke v OHIM — Eckes-Granini (Bomba)

(Case T-372/06)

(2007/C 42/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Bomba Energia Getränke Vertriebs GmbH (Wiener Neudorf, Austria) (represented by: A. Kockläuner, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG (Nieder-Olm, Germany)

Form of order sought

—

annul in its entirety the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2006 in Appeal Case R 184/2005-2;

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Bomba’ for goods in Classes 32 and 33 (Application No 558 874).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Eckes-Granini GmbH & Co. KG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Various word and figurative marks ‘la bamba’, including the German word mark ‘la bamba’ for goods in Classes 29, 32 and 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), in as much as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

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

Top