|
1.10.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 243/2 |
Appeal brought on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-445/04 between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL
(Case C-197/05 P)
(2005/C 243/03)
Language of the case: English
An appeal against the order made on 28 February 2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in case T-445/04 (1) between Energy Technologies ET SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Aparellaje eléctrico, SL, was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 May 2005 by Energy Technologies ET SA, established in Fribourg (Switzerland), represented by Ms A. Boman.
The Appellant
|
1) |
claims that the Court annuls the contested decision and remands the case to the Court of First Instance for trial of the trade mark matter. |
|
2) |
requests further respite of six months in order to be able to evaluate the need for further substantiation of this appeal and possibly for submittance of expert opinion. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
In the appealed decision the Court of First Instance dismissed the application on the grounds that Energy Technologies ET SA was not represented by a lawyer pursuant to Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice.
The appellant claims that the Court of First Instance has misinterpreted Article 19 of the Statute of the Court of Justice and that its finding that the appellant was not represented by a lawyer within the terms of that Article is incorrect.
(1) OJ C 182, 23.07.2005, p. 36