Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    (Case T-62/05)

    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 15 February 2005 by Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A., established in Treviso (Italy), represented by S. Feltrinelli and G. Brogi, lawyers.

Lotos Brillen Vertriebs-GmbH, established in Eisingen (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 7 October 2004, ruling case R 572/2003-4;

-    declare that the mark applied for, in so far as it concerns goods falling in class 9, namely "sports spectacles not made of precious material", is not capable of being confused with the opponent's CTM Mark No 610 642 and the International mark No 447 179;

-    order the reimbursement of the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:    Lotto Sport Italia S.p.A.

Community trade mark concerned:        The figurative mark "Lotto" for goods in classes 3, 9 and 16 (Spectacles, spectacle frames, spectacle cases, spectacle chains, spectacle cords, spectacle lenses, binoculars (optics, ...)- application No 1 443 183

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

opposition proceedings:            Lotos Brillen Vertriebs GmbH

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:    The Community and international word mark "Lotos" for goods in classes 9, 14 and 18 (Optical apparatus and instruments; spectacles; spectacle frames, in particular of metal; precious metals and their alloys; leather and imitations of leather; ...) - CTM registration No 610 642

Decision of the Opposition Division:        Rejection of the trade mark application for the opposed goods, ie. the goods in class 9

Decision of the Board of Appeal:        Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:                    Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94

____________