CELEX: 62008TN0108
Language: en
Date: 2008-02-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-108/08: Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)

9.5.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 116/24
            
         Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)
   (Case T-108/08)
   (2008/C 116/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE (Glyfada, Greece)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 298/2007-2;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the OHIM or the intervener to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 1 709 641
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43, 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, among others as the Board of Appeal has taken into account goods for which the trade mark applied for does not claim protection and on which the opposition was not based; as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the evidence presented by Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE for use of its trade marks; and as the Board of Appeal has considered evidence that the applicant could not evaluate.