Case T-307/08: Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM — Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)
Date: 2008-08-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing, leather, sports equipment, trade-mark law

11.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/15

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

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

— 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 1199/2007-1; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal

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: Infringement of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred by taking
into account alleged facts, as well as legal presumptions and
assumptions that had not been introduced or substantiated by
the parties, while at the same time it refused to take into
account other facts, evidence and arguments advanced by the
applicant;
infringement of Article 8(4) of Council Regulation
40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that there was
a likelihood of relevant confusion between the trade marks
concerned and, as a result, a likelihood of damage.

Action brought on 7 August 2008 — Aldi Einkauf v OHIM
— Goya Importaciones y Distribuciones (4 OUT Living)

(Case T-307/08)

(2008/C 260/27)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)
(represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, L. Kolks, C.
Fürsen, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Goya
Importaciones y Distribuciones SL (Cuarte de Huerva, Spain)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘4 OUT
Living’ for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 28

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: Spanish trade mark registration No 2 604 969
of the figurative mark ‘Living & Co’ for goods and services in
classes 3, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25, 34 and 35

Decision of
partially

the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that
there is a risk of confusion between the trade marks concerned.

Action brought on 5 August 2008 — Parfums Christian
Dior v OHIM — Consolidated Artists (MANGO adorably)

(Case T-308/08)

(2008/C 260/28)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Parfums Christian Dior SA (Paris, France) (represented
by: E. Cornu, D. Moreau and F. de Visscher, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Consoli-
dated Artists B.V. (Rotterdam, The Netherlands)

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 23 May 2008 in case R 1162/2007-2; and

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.