Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2005/171/53

Case T-181/05: Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

IO C 171, 9.7.2005, p. 33–33 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

9.7.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/33


Action brought on 10 May 2005 by Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-181/05)

(2005/C 171/53)

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 10 May 2005 by Citicorp, established in New York (USA), and Citibank, N.A., established in New York (USA), represented by V. v. Bomhard, A. Renck and A. Polhmann, lawyers.

Citi, S.L. established in Algete, Madrid (Spain), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claim that the Court should:

annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and designs) of 1 March 2005 in case R 173/2004-1;

order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:

Citi, S.L.

Community trade mark concerned:

The figurative mark CITI for services in class 36 (customs agencies, property valuers, real estate agents, evaluation and administration of house contents)- application No 1 430 750

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Citicorp and Citibank N.A.

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:

Their respective national and Community, word and figurative marks for services in class 36 (financial services and real estate services)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the Community trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, acceptance of the opposition in respect of ‘property valuers, real estate agents, evaluation and administration of house contents’ and rejection of the opposition in respect of ‘customs agencies’

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 73 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and the right to be heard, Violation of Article 73 and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and violation of Article 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94.


Top