This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0374
Case T-374/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)
Case T-374/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)
Case T-374/08: Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)
SL C 313, 6.12.2008, p. 35–35
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
6.12.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 313/35 |
Action brought on 10 September 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Illinois Tools Works (TOP CRAFT)
(Case T-374/08)
(2008/C 313/63)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks and C. Fürsen, 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: Illinois Tools Works, Inc. (Glenview, United States)
Form of order sought
— |
annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 June 2008 in Case No R 952/2007-2; |
— |
order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG
Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOP CRAFT’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3 (Application No 3 444 767)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Illinois Tools Works, Inc.
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national figurative marks ‘krafft’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision in so far as the opposition in respect of the goods ‘Chemicals used in agriculture, horticulture and forestry’ in Class 1 was upheld
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22(3) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95 because:
— |
the documents submitted by the opponent cannot prove use of the opposing marks, |
— |
there are significant graphical differences between the marks at issue, |
— |
the word element ‘TOP’ is not descriptive and of slight distinctive character, and |
— |
owing to the clear graphical differences and the additional word element ‘TOP’ in the mark applied for, a likelihood of confusion may be ruled out even if the goods are identical or similar. |