Back to EUR-Lex homepage

EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Use quotation marks to search for an "exact phrase". Append an asterisk (*) to a search term to find variations of it (transp*, 32019R*). Use a question mark (?) instead of a single character in your search term to find variations of it (ca?e finds case, cane, care).
Search tips
Need more search options? Use the Advanced search
You are here

Document C2005/182/70

Case T-167/05: Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

OJ C 182, 23.7.2005, p. 37–38 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

23.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/37

Action brought on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-167/05)

(2005/C 182/70)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 25 April 2005 by Grether AG, established in Binningen (Switzerland), represented by V. von Bomhard, A. Pohlmann and A. Renck, lawyers.

Crisgo (Thailand) Co., Ltd established in Samutsakorn (Thailand) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul in its entirety Decision R250/2002-4 of 14 October 2004 of the Board of Appeal of the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

—

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Crisgo Co. Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned:

Figurative mark FL FENNEL for goods in class 3 application No 903 922

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Community word mark FENJAL for goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismisses the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Articles 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94. In this context, the applicant alleges that the Board of Appal based its decision on various new arguments and facts not brought forward or discussed by the parties. The applicant further claims that the contested decision violates Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by concluding that there was no risk of confusion.
Top