Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 18 July 2003 by Euro Style '94 S.r.l. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    (Case T-261/03)

Language of the case

to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure

- language in which the application was submitted: English

An action against 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 18 July 2003 by Euro Style '94 S.r.l., Barletta, (Italy), represented by G. Pica, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

RCN-Companhia de Importaçao e Esportaçao de Texteis, LDA. was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1cancel or amed the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM no. R0067/2001-2;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1consequently to order the registration of the trademark "GLOVE" also for class 25 as requested by the firm Euro Style '94 S.r.l.;

listnum "WP List 1" \l 1order to bear the costs according to regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:The applicant.

Community trade mark sought:Figurative colour mark "GLOVE" - Application No 464016 for a range of goods and services in Classes 25, 35 and 41.

Proprietor of mark or sign cited

in the opposition proceedings:RCN-Companhia de importaçao e esportaçao de Texteis, Lda..

Mark or sign cited in the opposition:Spanish (registration No 1.629.840) and international (registration No 651.424) figurative trade mark "GLOIBE" and portuguese (registration No 310.796) and spanish (registration No 1.981.850) word trade mark "GLOBE" for goods in Class 25 (clothing, footwear and belts).

Decision of the Opposition Division:Refusal of the application for goods in class 25 (namely clothing, footwear and belts) and admission of the Community trade mark application for the remaining services in Classes 35 and 41.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:Rejection of the appeal.

Pleas in law:Incorrect application of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (Absence of confusion, lack of any risk of association and slight similarity of the products).

____________