Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/239/39

    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark VITAFRUT — Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Similarity of products — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15 and Article 43(2) and (3) 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 8 July 2004

    in Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier word mark VITAFRUT - Application for Community word mark VITAFRUIT - Genuine use of the earlier trade mark - Similarity of products - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15 and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    (2004/C 239/39)

    Language of the case: English

    In Case T-203/02: The Sunrider Corp., established in Torrance, California (United States), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: S. Laitinen), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being: Juan Espadafor Caba, resident in Granada (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 8 April 2002 (Case R 1046/2000-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Juan Espadafor Caba and The Sunrider Corp — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; M. J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 8 July 2004 in which it:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 233 of 28.9.2002.


    Top