This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62007TN0488
Case T-488/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)
Case T-488/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)
Case T-488/07: Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)
SL C 64, 8.3.2008, p. 44–44
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.3.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 64/44 |
Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)
(Case T-488/07)
(2008/C 64/73)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd (Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands) (represented by: C. Rogers, Barrister)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza (Viator, Spain)
Form of order sought
— |
Annul the decision of 19 September 2007 of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 293/2007-1; |
— |
direct the relevant Cancellation Division of OHIM to declare invalid Community trade mark registration No 3 517 431 EGLÉFRUIT; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘EGLÉFRUIT’ for goods and services in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade mark No 3 517 431
Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza
Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: The applicant
Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: The Community and national word and figurative marks ‘UGLI’ for goods in classes 29, 31 and 32
Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a declaration of invalidity
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94 because the Board of Appeal misapplied the test of likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.