Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/55 |

---

Action brought on 7 July 2008 — Becker Flugfunkwerk v OHIM — Harman Becker Automotive Systems (BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS)

(Case T-263/08)

(2008/C 223/98)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Becker Flugfunkwerk GmbH (Rheinmünster, Germany) (represented by: O. Griebenow, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Harman Becker Automotive Systems GmbH (Karlsbad, Germany)

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 10 April 2008 in case R 398/2007-1; and |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Refuse opposition No B 484 503 relating to Community trade mark application No 1 829 563. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘BECKER AVIONIC SYSTEMS’ for goods in class 9, application No 1 829 563

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: United Kingdom trade mark registration No 1 258 929 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; German trade mark registration No 1 039 843 of the figurative mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; German trade mark registration No 1 016 927 of the figurative mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 37; Finnish trade mark registration No 116 880 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; Greek trade mark registration No 82339 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9; International trade mark registration No 473 178 of the word mark ‘BECKER’ for goods in class 9

Decision of the Opposition Division: Uphold the opposition with respect to all the contested goods

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 there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.

---

[Top](#document1)