Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    (Case T-33/03)

    Language of the case

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

( language in which the application was submitted: German

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 4 February 2003 by Osotspa Co., Ltd., Bangkok, Thailand, represented by C. Gassauer-Fleissner, lawyer, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

Distribution & Marketing GmbH, Salzburg, Austria, was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(vary the contested decision of the Third Board of Appeal of 27 November 2002 in appeal proceedings No R 296/2002-3 so as to allow the applicant's opposition to the application for registration of the mark "Hai" filed by Distribution & Marketing GmbH on 10 September 1997 and refuse the application for registration;

(in the alternative, refer the case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market;

(order the defendant to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:Distribution & Marketing GmbHCommunity trade mark sought:The word mark "Hai" for goods and services in Classes 5, 32, 33, 35 and 42 (inter alia, vitamin preparations, fruit juices, alcoholic beverages, catering for guests) (application No 628172)Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The applicant, Osotspa Co., Ltd.Mark or sign cited in opposition:The Community figurative mark No 168427 and the national figurative mark "Shark" for goods in Class 32 (non-alcoholic drinks, syrups and other preparations for making beverages)Decision of the Opposition Division:

Rejection of the applicant's oppositionDecision of the Board of Appeal:Dismissal of the appealPleas in law:(The applicant claims that a minimal degree of similarity between the marks is sufficient for a finding that there is a likelihood of confusion because the goods are identical.

____________