CELEX: 62008TN0379
Language: en
Date: 2008-09-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-379/08: Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM

6.12.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 313/35
            
         Action brought on 11 September 2008 — Mustang v OHIM
   (Case T-379/08)
   (2008/C 313/64)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Mustang-Bekleidungswerke GmbH + Co. KG (Künzelsau, Germany) (represented by: A. Klett and K. Weimer, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Decathlon SA (Villeneuve d'Ascq, France)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 July 2008 in Case R 859/2007-4;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs of these proceedings and the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, including the applicant's costs in both proceedings.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Mustang
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Representation of a wavy line for goods and services in Classes 3, 18 and 25 (Application No 4 081 352)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Decathlon SA
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Existing national and international figurative mark constituted by the representation of a white wavy line on a black background, for goods in Classes 3, 18 and 25.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, because there are no aural, visual and conceptual similarities between the opposing marks that could give rise to a likelihood of confusion.