Action brought on 24 June 2008 - Coin v OHIM - Dynamiki Zoi (FITCOIN)

(Case T-249/08)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Coin SpA (Mestre, Venezia, Italy) (represented by: P. Perani and P. Pozzi, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Dynamiki Zoi Anonymi Etairia (Peristeri, Greece)

Form of order sought

Alter the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 April 2008 in case R 1429/2007-1;

Reject Community trade mark No 3 725 298 "FITCOIN"; and

Order the other parties to pay the costs, including those of the OHIM opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "FITCOIN" for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41 - application No 3 725 298

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

Mark or sign cited: The Italian trade mark "coin" registration No 160 126 for goods in class 25; the Italian trade mark "coin" registration No 253 233 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark "coin" registration No 240 305 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41; the Italian trade mark "coin" registration No 169 548 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary, Austria and Portugal; the Italian trade mark "coin" registration No 240 286 for goods and services in class 25, extended to Benelux, France, Hungary and Austria; Community trade mark "coin" registration No 109 827 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35; international trade mark "coin" registration No R 381 015 for goods and services in classes 16, 25, 28, 35, 36 and 41, extended to Benelux, Germany, Spain, France, Hungary, Austria, Portugal and Slovenia.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the trade marks concerned are visually and phonetically similar and the goods and services covered by the trade marks concerned are identical; infringement of Article 8 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the use of the trade mark applied for is likely to cause confusion.

____________