Case T-300/08: Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM — Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)
Date: 2008-08-01
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), supermarket, trade-mark law

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/21

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Plea in law:
Infringement of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between
the conflicting marks.

(1) Council Regulation No 40/94 0f 20 December 1991 on the Com-

munity trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 1 August 2008 — Hoo Hing v OHIM —
Tresplain Investments (Golden Elephant Brand)

(Case T-300/08)

(2008/C 247/41)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hoo Hing Holdings Ltd (Romford, United Kingdom)
(represented by: M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the
Board of Appeal to pay the costs jointly and severally.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the application for a
Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of
invalidity: The figurative mark ‘Golden Elephant
Brand’ for goods in class 30 — Community trade mark registra-
tion No 241 810

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

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 unregistered figurative mark ‘GOLDEN ELEPHANT’, which
had been in use in the United Kingdom

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application
for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the
Cancellation Division

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal erred when it held that the
allegation based upon Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 was inadmissible, as well as when it failed to find that
the objection to registration based upon Article 51(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94 was admissible and well founded.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tresplain
Investments Ltd (Hong Kong, China)

Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM
— Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1,
in
respect of the finding that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 ground of objection was inadmissible;

— Alternatively, alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal
of the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such
that Article 51(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94
ground of objection is held to be admissible and well
founded;

— Alter the decision of

the First Board of Appeal of

the
OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 such that
Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 ground of
objection is held to be admissible and well founded;

(Case T-301/08)

(2008/C 247/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Laura Ashley Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (repre-
sented by: J. Guise, Solicitor)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Tiziana
Bucci (Viareggio, Italy)

— Provided that the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the OHIM of 7 May 2008 in case R 889/2007-1 is altered
as requested, alter further the same decision so that Com-
munity trade mark No 241 810 is declared invalid on either
or both of these additional grounds as appropriate; and

— Order OHIM or the other party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs. Alternatively, order

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 28 May 2008 in case R 1237/2007-1 and
reject the opposition; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.