Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/048/52

    Case T-29/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Castellblanch v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH — Earlier national word mark CRISTAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    SL C 48, 25.2.2006, p. 28–28 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    25.2.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 48/28


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Castellblanch v OHIM

    (Case T-29/04) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ - Earlier national word mark CRISTAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    (2006/C 48/52)

    Language of the case: English

    Parties

    Applicant: Castellblanch, SA (Sant Sadurni d'Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)

    Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Champagne Louis Roederer SA (Reims, France) (represented by: P. Cousin, lawyer)

    Action

    brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 37/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Castellblanch, SA and Champagne Louis Roederer SA

    Operative part of the judgment

    The Court:

    1)

    Dismisses the action;

    2)

    Orders the applicant to pay the costs.


    (1)  OJ C 71 of 20. 03. 2004.


    Top