Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 24 November 2003 by CM Capital Markets Holding, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-390/03)

Language of the case: Spanish

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 24 November 2003 by CM Capital Markets Holding, S.A., established in Madrid, represented by Natalia Moya Fernández of the Madrid Bar.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

─    annul the decision of the OHIM (First Board of Appeal) of 23 September 2003 in Case R-244/2003 and, as a consequence, uphold in its entirety the opposition brought in opposition proceedings B348914;

─    accept the applicant's arguments persuading the OHIM Opposition Division that the sign concerned should not be registered as a mark;

─    order the OHIM to pay the costs and reject the OHIM's arguments.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:Caja de Ahorros de Murcia

Community trade mark sought:Figurative mark for which colour is claimed, consisting of the depiction of a red square containing the letters "CM" - Application No 1.413.061 for goods and services in Classes 1 to 42.

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:The applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition.Spanish figurative mark "CAPITAL MARKETS CM", registered under numbers 2.000.040, 2.000.041, 2.000.042 and 2.000.043 for services in Classes 35, 36, 38 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division:Opposition upheld and application for registration refused in respect of the following services: business management, business administration, office functions (Class 35); insurance, financial affairs, monetary affairs, banking business, real-estate affairs (Class 36); telecommunications (Class 38); legal services and scientific and industrial research (Class 42).

Decision of the Board of Appeal:Appeal brought by the applicant for the mark upheld.

Pleas in law:Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 incorrectly applied (likelihood of confusion).

____________