Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 February 2003 by Henkel KGaA against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    (Case T-67/03)

    Language of the case: English

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 27 February 2003 by Henkel KgaA, Düsseldorf, Germany, represented by Dr C. Osterrieth, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Koen Brutsaert was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 17 December 2002 in the appeal proceedings No R 940/2001-1;

listnum "WP List 2" \l 1order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:Koen Brutsaert

Community trade mark sought:Figurative mark "Professional Hygiene CID lines" for certain goods in Classes 1, 3 and 5 (application No 506618)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

opposition proceedings:Henkel KGaA

Mark or sign cited in opposition:National marks "CIDE" (for certain goods in classes 1 and 5) and "CID"(in respect of certain goods in Classes 1 and 3.

Decision of the Opposition Division:Opposition upheld for part of the contested goods, namely "bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry use; cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparation" (Class 3). The application for registration may proceed for the remaining goods of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:Mr. Brutsaert's appeal allowed in part. Application to register may proceed also in respect of the goods "cleaning, polishing, scouring and abrasive preparation" in Class 3. Mr. Brutsaert's appeal dismissed for the remainder ; Opponent's appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law:-misapplication of Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation 40/94¹. The applicant challenges the Board of Appeal's findings in relation to the issue of using and thus maintaining entitlement to the national mark "CIDE".

- misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation 40/94. The applicant challenges the Board of Appeal's findings regarding the issue of similarity of goods.

____________

¹ - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)