CELEX: 62007TN0460
Language: en
Date: 2007-12-18 00:00:00
Title: Case T-460/07: Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)

23.2.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 51/48
            
         Action brought on 18 December 2007 — Nokia v OHIM — Medion (LIFE BLOG)
   (Case T-460/07)
   (2008/C 51/90)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Nokia Oyj (Helsinki, Finland) (represented by: J. Tanhuanpää, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Medion AG (Essen, Germany)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               The decision of 2 October 2007 of the Second Board of Appeal in Case R 141/2007-2 should be set aside in its entirety and the case should be remitted to the OHIM for registration of the applicant's trade mark;
            
         
               —
            
            
               the respondent should be ordered to pay the costs of the applicant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘LIFE BLOG’ for goods and services in class 9, 38 and 41 — application No 3 564 366
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Medion AG
   
      Mark or sign cited: The national and international word marks ‘LIFE’ and ‘LIFETEC’, for goods and services in classes 1, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 21, 28, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the national and international word mark ‘LIFESAT’ for goods in Class 9 and the national word mark ‘Lifesign’ for goods in Classes 9, 14 and 16
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the application for registration partially
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Upheld the opposition and dismissed the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94.