Notice for the OJ

 

SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

Action brought on 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., against the office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-38/04)

Language of the case:

        to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure

     - language in which the case was submitted: English

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 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, represented by Dr H. Eichmann, Mr G. Barth, Dr U. Blumenröder, Ms C. Niklas-Falter, Dr M. Kinkeldey, Dr K. Brandt, Ms A. Franke, Ms U. Stephani, Dr B. Allekotte, Dr E.Pfrang, Ms K. Lochner, Ms B. Ertle, Ms Christine Neuhierl and Ms Sabine Prückner, lawyers.

Sun Microsystems, Inc., 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 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 642/2000-4 of 7 October 2003;

order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant.            

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for the Community trade mark:        Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd.

The Community trade mark sought:        The figurative mark "SUNPLUS" for certain goods in class 9 (Chips; semi-conductors; micro-processing chips; program cards;...) (trade mark application No 214346)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the

opposition proceedings:                Sun Microsystems Inc.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:            The national verbal and figurative marks "SUN" for goods in class 9 (computers; magnetic and electronic data carriers;...)

Decision of the Opposition Division:        Rejection of the trade mark application

Decision of the Board of Appeal1:            Dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant

Pleas in law:                    Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/942 in that there is no likelihood of confusion.

____________

¹ - Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 642/2000-4 of 7 October 2003

² - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 0 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)