Notice for the OJ
Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 30 June 2004 in Case T-317/01:
M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), 1(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for verbal mark 'M+M EUROdATA' - Earlier verbal mark EURODATA TV - Relative grounds for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
(Language of the case: French)
In Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH, established in Frankfurt am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and U. Pfleghar), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) being Mediametrie SA, established in Paris (France), represented originally by D. Dupuis-Latour and then by S. Szilvasi, lawyers ( action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2001 in Case R 698/2000-1 concerning opposition proceedings between Mediametrie SA and M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH ( the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood, Judges; D. Christensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 30 June 2004, in which it:
1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October 2001 in Case R 698/2000-1, save in so far as it referred the case back to the Opposition Division for the latter to act on the application for a trade mark in respect of the goods and services covered by that application and falling within Classes 9, 16 and 42;
2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the applicant's costs;
3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.
____________1 - OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.