CELEX: 62008TN0431
Language: en
Date: 2008-10-01 00:00:00
Title: Case T-431/08: Action brought on 1 October 2008 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)

6.12.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 313/46
            
         Action brought on 1 October 2008 — Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi v OHIM — Denim (VIGOSS)
   (Case T-431/08)
   (2008/C 313/84)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Bulur Giyim Sanayi ve Ticaret Sirketi (Istanbul, Turkey) (represented by: R. Böhm, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: A V Denim, Inc. (trading as A&V Denim, Inc.) (New York, United States)
   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 18 July 2008 in case R 1366/2007-2, insofar as it dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant against the decision of the Opposition Division of 26 June 2007 ruling on opposition No B 923 005; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in classes 14, 18 and 25
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
   
      Mark or sign cited: International trade mark registration No 771 374 of the figurative mark ‘VIGOSS’ for goods in class 25
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially rejected the application
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision and dismissed the appeal for the reminder
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to take into account all relevant factors when assessing the likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade marks.