Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

    (Case T-185/03)

    (Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco, represented by B. Saguatti, lawyers.

The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal was Antonio Fusco International S.A.

The applicant claims:

(as a principal claim, that the Court should annul the contested decisions of the Board of Appeal holding that the marks Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco were liable to be confused with each other;

--in the alternative, should the Court hold that the marks Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco are liable to confusion, that the Court should specify the precise territorial scope of the decision;

--as a principal claim, a declaration that, although the opposition is based on an earlier Community trade mark, the transformation procedure is not precluded save by reference to the territory in respect of which the existence of a risk of confusion may be recognised;

--that the opponent should be ordered to pay the costs, or, in the alternative, given the delicacy and complexity of the questions under consideration, that a composition of costs should be established

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:The ApplicantCommunity trade mark sought:The trade name "ENZO FUSCO" --Application for registration No 726735, requested for products in Classes 3, 9, 18, 24 and 25 (products which are traditionally the subject of trade mark registration by so-called creators of taste and fashion)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:Antonio Fusco International S.A., LuxembourgMark or sign cited in opposition:Community mark "ANTONIO FUSCO" (Registration No 654059) for products substantially identical to those claimed by the ApplicantDecision of the Opposition Division:Opposition upheld and application for registration dismissedDecision of the Board of Appeal:Dismissal of the appeal.Pleas in law:Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (Risk of confusion).

____________