Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document C2006/281/59

    Case T-96/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Monte di Massima v OHIM — Höfferle Internationale (Valle della Luna) (Community trade mark — Opposition procedure — Application for figurative Community trade mark Valle della Luna — Earlier national figurative mark VALLE DE LA LUNA — Proof of use of the earlier mark — Article 15(2)(a), and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    SL C 281, 18.11.2006, p. 34–34 (ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)

    18.11.2006   

    EN

    Official Journal of the European Union

    C 281/34


    Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Monte di Massima v OHIM — Höfferle Internationale (Valle della Luna)

    (Case T-96/05) (1)

    (Community trade mark - Opposition procedure - Application for figurative Community trade mark Valle della Luna - Earlier national figurative mark VALLE DE LA LUNA - Proof of use of the earlier mark - Article 15(2)(a), and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

    (2006/C 281/59)

    Language of the case: Italian

    Parties

    Applicant: Monte di Massima SAS di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. (Viddalba, Italy) (represented by: E. Masu and P. Pittalis, lawyers)

    Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: M.L. Capostagno, acting as Agent)

    Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: J.M. Höfferle Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: G. Brugmann, lawyer)

    Re:

    Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 24 Noevember 2004 (Case R 269/2004-1), concerning opposition proceedings between Monte di Massima SAS di Pruneddu Leonardo & C. and J.M. Höfferle Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH.

    Operative part

    The Court

    1.

    Dismisses the action;

    2.

    Orders the applicant to pay the costs incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and by the intervener.


    (1)  OJ C 115, 14.5.2005


    Top