Language of document :

Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 12 January 2005 by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-6/05)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

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 12 January 2005 by DEF-TEC Defense Technology GmbH established in Frankfurt am Main, (Germany) represented by H. Daniel, lawyer.

Defense Technology Corporation of America, established in Jacksonville, Florida (USA) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 November 2004 in case R 493/2002-2;

-    declare the invalidity of the opposition Decision of OHIM No. 722/2002;

-     order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:    The applicant

Community trade mark sought:        Figurative mark "FIRST DEFENSE AEROSOL PEPPER PROJECTOR" for products in class 5 (pharmaceutical products etc.), 8 (hand tools and implements etc.) and 13 (ammunition etc.)- Community trade mark application No 643668

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in        Defense Technology Corporation of America

the opposition proceedings:            

Mark or sign cited in opposition:        National international, word and figurative marks "FIRST DEFENSE"

Decision of the Opposition Division:        Refusal of registration

Decision of the Board of Appeal:        Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:                    Violation of Article 8 (3) of Regulation 40/941. The applicant contests the finding that it has failed to furnish sufficient evidence in order to prove that the filing of the contested mark was with the owner's consent.

____________

1 - Council Regulation (EC) No 0/9 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)