Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2004/273/68

Case T-353/04: Action brought on 23 August 2004 by Ontex N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

IO C 273, 6.11.2004, p. 36–36 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

6.11.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 273/36


Action brought on 23 August 2004 by Ontex N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-353/04)

(2004/C 273/68)

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 23 August 2004 by Ontex N.V., Buggenhout (Belgium), represented by M. Du Tré, lawyer.

Curon Medical, Inc., Sunnyvale, California (USA) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 July 2004

order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Curon Medical, Inc.

Community trade mark concerned:

Word mark ‘CURON’ for goods and services in classes 10, 41 and 42 (e.g. surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus, instruments and devices except X-ray apparatus) — application No 1 934 868

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Community word mark ‘EURON’ for goods and services in class 10 (e.g. surgical, medical, dental and veterinary apparatus, instruments and devices except X-ray apparatus) — Community trade mark No 762 351

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution

Pleas in law:

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94


Top