CELEX: 62009TN0041
Language: en
Date: 2009-01-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-41/09: Action brought on 27 January 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)

4.4.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 82/32
            
         Action brought on 27 January 2009 — Hipp & Co v OHIM — Nestlé (Bebio)
   (Case T-41/09)
   (2009/C 82/56)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Hipp & Co (Sachseln, Switzerland) (represented by: A. Bognár and M. Kinkeldey, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sociéte des Produits Nestlé, S.A. (Vevey, Switzerland)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 25 November 2008 in case R 1790/2007-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order OHIM 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 ‘Bebio’, for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32
   
      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: International trade mark registration No 187 436 of the word mark ‘BEBA’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30; Community trade mark registration No 3 043 387 of the word mark ‘BEBA’ for goods in classes 5, 29 and 30
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly assessed that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned