Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

    (Case T-215/03)

    Language of the case: Spanish

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 13 June 2003 by SIGLA, S.A., with offices in Madrid, represented by E. Armijo Chávarri.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(annul the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM no. R 1127/2000-3 of 1 April 2003 on the ground that it is inconsistent with Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94;

(in the alternative, annul the contested decision on the ground that it prejudices SIGLA's rights of defence and the principle underlying Article 74 of Regulation No 40/94,

and

(order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:        ELLENI HOLDING BV

Community trade mark sought            Word mark "VIPS"

                            Application no. 459.875

                            sought for products and services within classes 9. 35 and 42 and, subsequently, only for services within class 42

                            (computer programming services for

hotels, restaurants and cafes)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the    The applicant

opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition:        Spanish word mark "VIPS"

                            (registration no 551.436)

                            for products of class 42

(supplying prepared food and drink for consumption, restaurants, service stations, canteens, bars and cafeterias and hotel services)

Decision of the Opposition Division:    Acceptance of the opposition for

services falling within class 42,

rejection of the opposition for                            products falling within classes 9 and 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal:     Action upheld, contested decision annulled

Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article

8(5) of (EC) Regulation No. 40/94 and, in the alternative, infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of the regulation

____________