This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document C2006/178/37
Case C-234/06 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2006 by Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM and Marine Entreprise Project — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
Case C-234/06 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2006 by Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM and Marine Entreprise Project — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
Case C-234/06 P: Appeal brought on 24 May 2006 by Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM and Marine Entreprise Project — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
JO C 178, 29.7.2006, p. 23–24
(ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, NL, PL, PT, SK, SL, FI, SV)
29.7.2006 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 178/23 |
Appeal brought on 24 May 2006 by Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA against the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 23 February 2006 in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA v OHIM and Marine Entreprise Project — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi Srl
(Case C-234/06 P)
(2006/C 178/37)
Language of the case: Italian
Parties
Appellant: Il Ponte Finanziaria SpA (represented by: P. Roncaglia, A. Torrigiani Malaspina, M. Boletto, lawyers)
Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Marina Entreprise Project — Società Unipersonale di Alberto Fiorenzi
Form of order sought
(1) |
Set aside the judgement of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) of 23 February 2003 in Case T-194/03 which dismisses the applicant's action and orders it to pay the costs. |
(2) |
Uphold the action brought by the applicant before the Court of First Instance:
|
Pleas in law and main arguments
The applicant submits that the judgement under appeal is vitiated due to:
(1) |
Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a risk of confusion between the conflicting trade marks:
|
(2) |
Misapplication of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 as the Court did not take into consideration the applicant's word mark No 642952 THE BRIDGE;
|
(3) |
Misapplication of Articles 15(2)(a) and 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the Court did not take into consideration the applicant's figurative mark No 370836 BRIDGE;
|
(4) |
Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the fact that the applicant is the proprietor of several trade marks all turning on the word ‘bridge’ (marks in a series) increases the risk of confusion between those trade marks taken as a whole and the trade mark BAINBRIDGE;
|