Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 9 May 2005 by Teletech Holdings Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    (Case T-194/05)

    Language in which the application was lodged: English

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 9 May 2005 by Teletech Holdings Inc., established in Englewood, Colorado (USA), represented by A. M. Gould, Solicitor.

Teletech International S.A. established in Paris (France), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    Annul the Decision the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 3 March 2005, in case R 497/2004-1;

-    Remit the matter to the Opposition Division for it to consider and rule on TeleTech's US opposition to Community trade mark 2 168 409 in the name of Teletech International SA based on its Community trade mark No. 134 908 TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES;

-    Order the Office to pay TeleTech's US's costs relating to its proceedings both in the Court of First Instance and before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:

TELETECH INTERNATIONAL S.A.

Community trade mark concerned:    Word mark TELETECH INTERNATIONAL for services in classes 35, 38 and 42

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

opposition proceedings:

The applicant

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:National mark "TELETECH" and Community trade mark "TELETECH GLOBAL VENTURES"

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Registration refused Decision of the Board of Appeal:    Declares the appeal inadmissible

Pleas in law:    The applicant contends that the Court of First Instance's judgment of 16 September 2004 in case T-342/02, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion / OHMI declaring an appeal brought in similar circumstances inadmissible, was wrongly decided; in the alternative, it submits that this judgment could be distinguished; finally, it submits that its position in the USA has been seriously prejudiced by the decision of the Opposition Division and that, therefore, its appeal against the latter's decision should have been declared admissible.

____________