This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0256
Case T-256/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
Case T-256/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
Case T-256/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
SL C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 66–66
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
15.8.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 209/66 |
Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
(Case T-256/08)
(2008/C 209/116)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Chicago, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and A. Bognár, lawyers)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mejerigaarden Holding A/S (Thisted, Denmark)
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 15 April 2008 in case R 845/2006-2; and |
|
— |
Order the defendant to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘POLAR ICE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 30
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited: Community trade mark registration No 1 273 564 of the figurative mark ‘Polar is’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1971 03528 of the word mark ‘POLAR IS’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1994 07979 of the word mark ‘POLAR MAXI’ for goods in class 30
Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks show relevant visual, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarities to avoid any likelihood of confusion.