Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/108/27

    Case T-322/03: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2006 — Telefon & Buch v OHIM (Community trade mark — Admissibility of the action — Unforeseeable circumstances — Application for a declaration of invalidity — Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Word mark WEISSE SEITEN — Absolute grounds for refusal — Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94)

    IO C 108, 6.5.2006, p. 17–17 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    6.5.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 108/17


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 March 2006 — Telefon & Buch v OHIM

    (Case T-322/03) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Admissibility of the action - Unforeseeable circumstances - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Word mark WEISSE SEITEN - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(b) to (d) of Regulation No 40/94)

    (2006/C 108/27)

    Language of the case: German

    Parties:

    Applicant: Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH (Salzburg, Austria) (represented by: H. Zeiner and M. Baldares del Barco, lawyers)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: G.Schneider, Agent)

    Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Herold Business Data GmbH & Co.KG (Mödling, Austria) (represented by: A. Lensing-Kramer, C. von Nussbaum and U.Reese, lawyers)

    Action

    brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 19 June 2003 (Joined Cases R 580/2001-1 and R 592/2001-1) relating to invalidity proceedings between Herold Business Data AG and Telefon & Buch Verlagsgesellschaft mbH,

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders the applicant to pay the costs, except those incurred by the intervener;

    3.

    Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.


    (1)  OJ 2003 C 6, of 8.1.2005


    Top