CELEX: 62008TN0361
Language: en
Date: 2008-08-27 00:00:00
Title: Case T-361/08: Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)

22.11.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 301/42
            
         Action brought on 27 August 2008 — Peek & Cloppenburg and van Graaf v OHIM — Thailand (Thai Silk)
   (Case T-361/08)
   (2008/C 301/71)
   Language in which the application was lodged: German
   Parties
   
      Applicants: Peek & Cloppenburg (Hamburg, Germany) and van Graaf GmbH & Co. KG (Vienna, Austria) (represented by: V. von Bombard, A. Renck, T. Dolde and J. Pause, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Thailand
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) No R 1677/2007-4 of 10 June 2008
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for a Community trade mark: Thailand
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The figurative trade mark ‘Thai Silk’ with the colours ‘dark blue and white’ for goods in Classes 24 and 25 (Registration No 4 099 297)
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: the Applicants
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: Representation of a black and white peacock for goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 35.
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks at issue due to their similar overall impression.