CELEX: 62008TN0440
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-440/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion (1-2-3.TV)

20.12.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 327/34
            
         Action brought on 1 October 2008 — 1-2-3.TV v OHIM — Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion (1-2-3.TV)
   (Case T-440/08)
   (2008/C 327/62)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicant: 1-2-3.TV GmbH (Unterföhring, Germany) (represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, T. Dolde und E. Nicolás Gómez, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (Mainz, Germany) and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH (Hamburg, Germany)
   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 30 June 2008 (Case R 1076/2007-1); and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘1-2-3.TV’ for services in classes 35, 38 and 41 — Application No 3 763 133
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen and Televersal Film- und Fernseh-Produktion GmbH
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National figurative mark ‘1, 2 ODER 3 ZDF-ORF-SFDRS’ for goods and services in classes 3, 5, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 35, 38, 41 and 42
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partly upheld
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94, there being no likelihood of confusion between the marks in opposition on account of the differing overall impression of the marks.