EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0162
Case T-162/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)
Case T-162/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)
Case T-162/08: Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)
SL C 171, 5.7.2008, p. 40–41
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
5.7.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 171/40 |
Action brought on 29 April 2008 — Frag Comercio Internacional v OHIM — Tinkerbell Modas (GREEN by missako)
(Case T-162/08)
(2008/C 171/78)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Frag Comercio Internacional, SL (Esparraguera, Spain) (represented by: E. Sugrañes, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tinkerbell Modas, Ltda (São Paulo, Brazil)
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 14 February 2008 in case R 1527/2006-2; |
— |
reject the application for Community trade mark No 3 663 234; and |
— |
order the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GREEN by missako’ for goods and services in classes 3, 25, 35 — application No 3 663 234
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The Community figurative trade mark ‘MI SA KO’ for goods in classes 18 and 25; the national figurative trade mark ‘MI SA KO’ for services in class 35
Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as a mere global likelihood of confusion among consumers is required in order to deny a Community trade mark application.