EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/281/52
Case T-328/05: Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM
Case T-328/05: Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM
Case T-328/05: Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM
OJ C 281, 12.11.2005, p. 28–28
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.11.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 281/28 |
Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Apple Computer/OHIM
(Case T-328/05)
(2005/C 281/52)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant(s): Apple Computer, Inc. (Cupertino, USA) [represented by: P. Rawlinson, S. Jones, J. Rutter, solicitors]
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: TKS-Teknosoft S.A. (Treplex, Switzerland)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annulment of the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal No. R 416/2004-4; |
|
— |
Annulment of the Decision of the Opposition Division No. 851/2004; and |
|
— |
Order the opponent to pay the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal and the appeal before the Board of Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark QUARTZ for goods in class 9 (application No 1 421 130)
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: TKS-Teknosoft S.A.
Mark or sign cited: Figurative Community trade mark QUARTZ for goods in classes 9 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion amongst the relevant public between the two conflicting trade marks. The Opposition Division and the Board of Appeal erred in finding similarity between the relevant goods and failed to assess the likelihood of confusion by reference to the relevant consumers thereby giving the opponent TKS-Teknosoft S.A. a trade mark monopoly.