CELEX: 62008TN0123
Language: en
Date: 2008-03-14 00:00:00
Title: Case T-123/08: Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)

9.5.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 116/27
            
         Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)
   (Case T-123/08)
   (2008/C 116/50)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwalt)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares, LLC (Los Angeles, United States of America)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1);
            
         
               —
            
            
               reject the opposition entered by Homeland Housewares, LLC, against the word mark for which registration is sought, ‘Magic Butler’ No 4 109 906;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harald Spitzer.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Magic Butler’ for goods in Classes 7 and 21 (application No 4 109 906)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homeland Housewares, LLC
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 4 100 483) and the word mark ‘THE MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 3 584 885)
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EG) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in conflict.
   
      (1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).