Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/239/38

    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Earlier DIESEL word marks — Application for Community figurative trade mark DIESELIT — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    OJ C 239, 25.9.2004, p. 19–19 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.9.2004   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 239/19


    JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

    of 30 June 2004

    in Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Earlier DIESEL word marks - Application for Community figurative trade mark DIESELIT - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    (2004/C 239/38)

    Language of the case: Italian

    In Case T-186/02: BMI Bertollo Srl, established in Pianezze San Lorenzo (Italy), represented by F. Tedeschini, M. Pinnarò, P. Santer, V. Corbeddu and M. Bertuccelli, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: O. Montalto) intervening before the Court of First Instance being: Diesel SpA, established in Molvena (Italy), represented by G. Bozzola and C. Bellomunno, lawyers — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 March 2002 (Case R 525/2001-3), concerning an opposition procedure between BMI Bertollo Srl and Diesel SpA — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of: H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 191 of 10.8.2002.


    Top