This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2005/006/77
Case T-396/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case T-396/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Case T-396/04: Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
SL C 6, 8.1.2005, p. 39–40
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
8.1.2005 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 6/39 |
Action brought on 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
(Case T-396/04)
(2005/C 6/77)
Language of the case: Italian
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 4 October 2004 by SOFFASS S.p.A., represented by Vincenzo Biliardo and Cristiano Bacchini, lawyers.
The other party to the proceedings before the appeal board was: SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions).
The applicant claims that the Court should:
— |
Annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 June 2004 in Case R-699/2003-1; |
— |
Order OHIM to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments:
Applicant for Community trade mark: |
The applicant |
Community trade mark considered: |
Figurative mark ‘NICKY’ – Application No 1 315 985 for products in Class 16 (Paper, cardboard and goods made from these materials, for household and cleaning purposes). |
Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: |
The French company SODIPAN (Société en Commandite par Actions). |
Mark or sign cited in opposition. |
Figurative French marks ‘NOKY’ (No 1 346 586) and ‘noky’ (No 1 400 192) for products in Class 16. |
Decision of the Opposition Division: |
Opposition dismissed. |
Decision of the Board of Appeal: |
Annulment of the Opposition Division decision, the matter being referred back to it for reconsideration. |
Pleas in law: |
Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion). |