Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    (Case T-164/03)

    (Language of the case: French)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 May 2003 by Ampafrance SA, established in Cholet (France), represented by C. Bercial Arias, lawyer.

Johnson & Johnson GmbH was also a party to the proceedings before the First Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul or vary those parts of the decision given by the First Board of Appeal of the defendant on 4 March 2003 in Case R 220/2002-1 in which the applicant's claims were not upheld and, consequently, rule that "babies' napkins of absorbent cotton" are not similar to the goods covered by the German trade mark "bebe" (No 1 168 346), that there are no similarities liable to lead to a likelihood of confusion between the marks "bebe" and "monBeBé" (logo) and that Community trade mark application No 297 309 is to be registered in its entirety;

(order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:Ampafrance SACommunity trade mark sought:Mixed word and figurative mark "monbebé" ( Application No 297 309, lodged in respect of goods in Classes 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 28.Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Johnson & Johnson GmbHMark or sign cited in opposition:National trade mark "bebe", registered for goods in Classes 3, 16 and 24.Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the opposition.Decision of the Board of Appeal:Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and partial rejection of the application for registration as regards certain goods such as soaps etc; dismissal of the remainder of the appealPleas in law:Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion).

____________