11.6.2005   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/43

Action brought on 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-152/05)

(2005/C 143/79)

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 18 April 2005 by John Arthur Slater, residing in London (United Kingdom), represented by M. J. Gilbert, Solicitor.

Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc., established in Mississanga, Ontario (Canada) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 13 December 2004 in Case R 582/2003-4;

—

dismiss Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc's request for a declaration of invalidity in respect of Community trade mark registration No 447730;

—

order the Office and other parties to bear their own costs and pay those of the applicant in this application, in appeal No R582/2003-4 and in cancellation proceedings No 232C000447730/1.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity:

The word mark EAST SIDE MARIO'S for goods and services in classes 25, 26 and 42 — Community trade mark No 447730

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

John Arthur Slater

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Prime Restaurant Holdings, Inc.

Rights of the applicant for a declaration of invalidity:

The national word and figurative marks EAST SIDE MARIO'S

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Invalidity of the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 51(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. According to the applicant, the Board erred in finding that the applicant acted for a third person who should be considered to be the applicant for the trade mark, that this third person acted in bad faith and that there is unfair practice.