Notice for the OJ

 

Action brought on 26 September 2005 - Saint-Gobain Pam SA v OHIM

(Case T -364/05)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Saint-Gobain Pam SA (Nancy, France) (represented by: J. Blanchard, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Propamsa SA

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

-    annul the decision given on 15 April 2005 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs);

-    order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Saint-Gobain Pam SA

Community trade mark concerned: word mark 'PAM PLUVIAL' for goods in Class 6 ('pipes and tubes of metal or based on metal, pipes and tubes of cast iron, fittings of metal for the aforesaid goods') and Class 17 ('fittings, not of metal, for rigid pipes and tubes, not of metal').

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Propamsa SA

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish trade mark registration No 737 992 of the semi-figurative mark 'PAM PAM', for goods in Class 19 ('construction materials'), Spanish trade mark registration No 120 075 of the word mark 'PAM' for goods in Class 19 ('cements') and International trade mark registration No 463 089 'PAM' for goods in Class 1 ('adhesive substances destined for industry') and Class 19 ('materials for construction (non-metallic), wrought or unwrought').

Decision of the Opposition Division: upheld the opposition and rejected the application for registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissed the appeal.

Pleas in law:

Infringement of the principle of continuity in terms of their functions between the various departments of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in that a decision that a party appearing before the authorities ruling at first instance which has failed to provide evidence as to matters of fact or law within the prescribed time-limits cannot, pursuant to Article 74(2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, rely on such evidence before the Board of Appeal is contrary to that principle.

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of that Regulation.

____________