Case T-301/08: Action brought on 6 August 2008 — Laura Ashley v OHIM — Tiziana Bucci (LAURA ASHLEY)
Date: 2008-08-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, 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.

C 247/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

27.9.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community
ASHLEY’ for various goods in classes 3, 18, 24 and 25

trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LAURA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

sign cited:

International

the figurative mark ‘Ashley's’

trade mark registration
Mark
or
No 311 675 of
for goods in
class 25; Italian trade mark registration No 517 151 of the
figurative mark ‘Ashley's’ for goods in class 3, 18, 24 and 25;
international trade mark registration No 646 926 of the figura-
tive mark ‘Ashley's il primo Cashmere Italiano’ for goods in
class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its
entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to establish whether the
applicant was using the Community trade mark applied for
without due cause.

Appeal brought on 1 August 2008 by Kurt-Wolfgang
Braun-Neumann against the judgment of the Civil Service
Tribunal delivered on 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07,
Braun-Neumann v Parliament

(Case T-306/08 P)

(2008/C 247/43)

Language of the case: German

Parties

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service

Tribunal of the European Union for judgment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appeal is directed against the Civil Service Tribunal's order
of 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07 Braun-Neumann v Parliament,
dismissing as inadmissible the action brought by the appellant.

The appellant submits in support of his appeal that the Civil
Service Tribunal erred in law in its interpretation of Article 90(2)
of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Commu-
nities, since its interpretation infringes general principles of
Community law. In the appellant's view, the Tribunal's interpre-
tation of a letter as an act adversely affecting it is incorrect.
Further, the principle of legal certainty can be satisfied only if
the absence of information about available legal remedies is
regarded as prejudicial to the determination of when the period
for lodging the complaint commenced, since otherwise the liti-
gant's rights would be undermined. Lastly, the Tribunal's inter-
pretation should be regarded as disproportionate in view of the
consequences for the appellant.

Action brought on 8 August 2008 — BSH Bosch und
Siemens Hausgeräte v OHIM (executive edition)

(Case T-310/08)

(2008/C 247/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: BSH Bosch und Siemens Hausgeräte GmbH (Munich,
Germany) (represented by: S. Biagosch, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Appellant: Kurt-Wolfgang Braun-Neumann (Lohr am Main,
Germany) (represented by: P. Ames, Rechtsanwalt)

Form of order sought

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service

Tribunal of 23 May 2008 in Case F-79/07;

— rule on the merits and uphold the appellant's original appli-
cation and therefore order the Parliament to pay him with
retroactive effect from 1 August 2004 the other half of the
survivor's pension in right of Mrs Mandt in the monthly
sum of EUR 1 670,84 plus interest at the rate applied by
the European Central Bank on the marginal lending facility,
increased by 3 %;

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) of 5 June 2008 in Case R-845/2007-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to bear its own costs and to pay
those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned:
edition’
No 4 908 182).

for goods

the word mark ‘executive
in Classes 7, 9 and 11 (application

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.