Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-341/04)

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 13 August 2004 by DATAC AG, Passau (Germany), represented by K. Zingsheim, lawyer.

DATEV eG, Nuremberg (Germany), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 12 May 2004 in Case R 176/2002-4;

-    reject the opposition entered by DATEV eG;

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:The applicant.

Community trade mark sought:The word mark "DATAC" for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 23 and 42 (inter alia, computer hardware and parts and computer software, printed matter, business affairs and rental and licensing of computer hardware and software) - Application No 665 455.

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

DATEV eG.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:The German and Community word marks "DATEV" for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 41 and 42 (inter alia, office organisation tools, electronic data processing for others, providing of training and tuition in the field of data processing and planning, developing, establishing and maintenance of electronic data processing programmes).

Decision of the Opposition Division:Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal:Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division and referral of the proceedings back to the Opposition Division.

Pleas in law:-    infringement of Articles 8(1)(b)     and 53(1) of Regulation (EC)     No 40/94;

-    misapplication of Article 8(5) of     Regulation (EC) No 40/94;

-    no likelihood of confusion     between the opposed marks.

____________