Access to European Union law
<a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/content/help/eurlex-content/experimental-features.html" target="_blank">More about the experimental features corner</a>
Choose the experimental features you want to try
EUR-Lex
Access to European Union law

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

You are here
Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search

Document 62006TJ0093

    Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2008.
    Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).
    Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA - Earlier national word mark SPA - Relative ground for refusal - Reputation - Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark - Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
    Case T-93/06.

    European Court Reports 2008 II-00093*

    ECLI identifier: ECLI:EU:T:2008:215

    Date of document:
    19/06/2008
    Date lodged:
    23/03/2006
    Author:
    General Court
    Country or organisation from which the request originates:
    Germany
    Form:
    Judgment
    Authentic language:
    English
    Type of procedure:
    Action for annulment - unfounded
    Applicant:
    Individual
    Defendant:
    EU institutions and bodies, European Union Intellectual Property Office
    Judge-Rapporteur:
    Wahl
    Treaty:
    Treaty establishing the European Economic Community
    Link
    Select all documents mentioning this document
    Instruments cited in case law:





    Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Eighth Chamber) of 19 June 2008 – Mülhens v OHIM – Spa Monopole (MINERAL SPA)

    (Case T-93/06)

    Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for Community word mark MINERAL SPA – Earlier national word mark SPA – Relative ground for refusal – Reputation – Unfair advantage taken of the repute of the earlier mark – Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94

    1.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see paras 41-43)

    2.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 33)

    3.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b) and (5)) (see para. 38)

    4.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (see para. 39)

    5.                     Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark enjoying a reputation (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(5)) (see para. 40)

    Re:

    ACTION brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 January 2006 (Case R 825/2004-2) concerning opposition proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV, and Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG.

    Information relating to the case

    Applicant for the Community trade mark:

    Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG

    Community trade mark sought:

    Word mark MINERAL SPA for goods in Class 3

    Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

    Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV

    Mark or sign cited in opposition:

    Several marks containing the word SPA, registered in Benelux for goods in Class 32

    Decision of the Opposition Division:

    Registration refused

    Decision of the Board of Appeal:

    Appeal dismissed


    Operative part

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG to pay the costs.

    Top