This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/296/56
Case T-330/05: Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
Case T-330/05: Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
Case T-330/05: Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
OJ C 296, 26.11.2005, p. 26–26
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
26.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 296/26 |
Action brought on 2 September 2005 — Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt v OHIM
(Case T-330/05)
(2005/C 296/56)
Language in which the application was lodged: German
Parties
Applicant(s): Aqua-Terra Bioprodukt GmbH (Griesheim, Germany) (represented by: P.A. Müller, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: De Ceuster Meststoffen NV (Sint-Katelijne-Waver, Belgium)
Forms of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
|
— |
annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal proceedings No R0984/2004-1, dated 1 July 2005; |
|
— |
in the alternative, set aside and annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in appeal proceedings No R0984/2004-1, dated 1 July 2005, in so far as ‘biological substances, namely preparations for conditioning, reconstructing and recultivating sewage or for use in sewage treatment plants’ are concerned. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘aqua terra’ for goods in Classes 1 and 3 — Registration No 1 480 243
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: De Ceuster Meststoffen NV
Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘AQUATERRA’ for goods in Classes 1, 5 and 31
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholds the opposition which was restricted in relation to the goods in Class 1 and refusal to register all the goods in Class 1
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal
Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 due to an erroneous assessment of the likelihood of confusion of the two marks in opposition. Consideration was not taken of the individual goods and their similarity as required and a general evaluation was carried out instead.