Notice for the OJ

 

Action by Komsa Kommunikation Sachsen AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) brought on 13 December 2004

(Case T-482/04)

Language of the case: German

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 13 December 2004 by Komsa Kommunikation Sachsen AG, established in Hartmannsdorf (Germany), represented by F. Hagemann, lawyer.

The other party before the Board of Appeal was Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG., established in Norderstedt (Germany).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

set aside the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2004 (Case R65/2003-4) in so far as it allowed the appeal of the opposing party in respect of the goods submitted for Community registration: 'Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of images, sound and data; electrotechnical and electronic apparatus and systems composed thereof for the remote control of industrial processes; all such above-mentioned goods being also capable of installation in vehicles; programmed machine-readable data carriers of all kinds'.

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community mark:The applicantCommunity mark submitted for registration:The pictorial mark "@k" for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 37, 38 and 42 (Application No 1322460)Proprietor of the rival mark or design cited in the opposition procedure:Anders + Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG.Mark or design cited in opposition:The Community pictorial mark 'A+K' for goods and services in Classes 6, 9 and 20 (Community Mark No 294 546).Decision of the Opposition Division:Dismissal of the Opposition.Decision of the Board of Appeal:Appeal by Anders+Kern Präsentationssysteme GmbH & Co. KG allowed in so far as it related to 'Apparatus for recording, transmission or reproduction of images, sound and data; electrotechnical and electronic apparatus and systems composed thereof for the remote control of industrial processes; all such above-mentioned goods being also capable of installation in vehicles; programmed machine-readable data carriers of all kinds'. Otherwise, appeal dismissed.Grounds:The decision of the Board of Appeal infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94, because the Board made an incorrect assessment of the requirements for the existence of a risk of confusion in trade mark law. In the applicant's submission, there is no such risk of confusion between the marks being compared in this case.

____________