Choose the experimental features you want to try

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)

    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.


    Top