CELEX: 62008TN0260
Language: en
Date: 2008-07-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-260/08: Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)

30.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 223/54
            
         Action brought on 3 July 2008 — Indo Internacional v OHIM — Visual (VISUAL MAP)
   (Case T-260/08)
   (2008/C 223/96)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Indo Internacional, SA (Sant Cugat del Vallės, Spain) (represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell Aguilà, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Visual SA (Saint Apollinaire, France)
   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 15 April 2008 in case R 700/2007-1; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant 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 ‘VISUAL MAP’ for services in class 44 — application No 393 2936
   
      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: French trade mark registration No 043 303 854 of the word mark ‘VISUAL’ for services in class 44
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety
   
      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.