Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/190/26

Case T-31/04: Action brought on 28 January 2004 by Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

OJ C 190, 24.7.2004, p. 16–16 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

24.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/16


Action brought on 28 January 2004 by Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case T-31/04)

(2004/C 190/26)

Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2004 by Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V., established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, letrados en ejercicio.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Annul the OHMI decision (First Board of Appeal) of 12 November 2003 in joined cases R 419/2001-1 and R 530/2001-1;

Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Jesús Gómez Frías

Community trade mark applied for:

Figurative mark 'EUROMASTER' – Application No 728.295 for services in Classes 39 (transport and storage of vehicles and accessories therefor) and 41 (organisation of sports competitions)

Proprietor of the opposing trade mark or sign:

The applicant

Opposing trade mark or sign:

Word marks 'EUROMASTER': Spanish (Nos 1.613.599 and 1.613.600), French (No 1.624.667), Austrian (172.243), Benelux (No 495.020), Danish (No VR 08 0221991), Finnish (No 119.689), English (Nos 1.454.805 and 1.455.074), Greek (No 109.184), Irish (No B 146.109), Italian (No 608.701), Portuguese (Nos 270.847 and 270.848) and Swedish (No 245.822) for goods and services in Classes 12, 16 and 37

Decision of Opposition Division:

Upheld for opposition in respect of services in Class 39 and dismissal thereof in respect of services in Class 41

Decision of Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Incorrect implementation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and infringement of Article 73 thereof


Top