Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 28 February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

    (Case T-105/05)

    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 28 February 2005 by Assembled Investments (Proprietary) Limited, established in Stellenbosch (South Africa), represented by P. Hagman, lawyer.

Waterford Wedgwood Plc, established in Waterford (Ireland) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of 15 December 2004 and establish that the applied Community trade mark application No 1 438 860 "WATERFORD STELLENBOSCH" is not confusingly similar with the Community trade mark registration No 397 521 "WATERFORD";

-    remit the case to OHIM for registration purposes;

-    order the defendant OHIM and the opponent and co-defendant Waterford Wedgwood Plc to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community trade mark:    Assembled Investments (Propietary) Limited

Community trade mark concerned:        The figurative mark "Waterford Stellenbosch" for goods in class 33 (alcoholic beverages including wines) - application No 1 438 860

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

opposition proceedings:            Waterford Wedgwood Plc

Trade mark or sign cited in opposition:    The Community word mark "WATERFORD" for goods in classes 3, 8, 11, 21, 24 and 34 (Perfumery products, essential oils; cutlery; lamps; articles of glassware; ...) - Community trade mark No 397 521

Decision of the Opposition Division:        Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal:        Annulment of the contested decision and                     rejection of the application

Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b), 8(5) and 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 in that there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks and that there is no persuasive evidence that the earlier mark would be detrimentally affected or that an unfair advantage would be taken.

____________