CELEX: 62008TN0256
Language: en
Date: 2008-06-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-256/08: Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)

15.8.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 209/66
            
         Action brought on 24 June 2008 — Wrigley v OHIM — Mejerigaarden (POLAR ICE)
   (Case T-256/08)
   (2008/C 209/116)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Chicago, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Schäffler and A. Bognár, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mejerigaarden Holding A/S (Thisted, Denmark)
   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 15 April 2008 in case R 845/2006-2; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order the defendant 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 ‘POLAR ICE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 30
   
      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: Community trade mark registration No 1 273 564 of the figurative mark ‘Polar is’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1971 03528 of the word mark ‘POLAR IS’ for goods in class 30; Danish trade mark registration No VR 1994 07979 of the word mark ‘POLAR MAXI’ for goods in class 30
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the Community trade mark application in its entirety
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the conflicting trade marks show relevant visual, phonetic and conceptual dissimilarities to avoid any likelihood of confusion.