|
10.3.2007 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 56/30 |
Action brought on 22 December 2006 — ZERO Industry v OHIM — zero International Holding (zerorh+)
(Case T-400/06)
(2007/C 56/59)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: ZERO Industry Srl (Como, Italy) (represented by: M. Rapisardi, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Bremen, Germany)
Form of order sought
|
— |
Annul decision R0958/2005-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, of 5 October 2006, notified to the applicant on 23 October 2006; |
|
— |
definitively reject the opposition brought by the defendant against the registration of Community trade mark application No 2004547, on behalf of Zero Industry Srl; |
|
— |
order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to proceed with the registration of the CTM lodged by ZERO Industry Srl; |
|
— |
order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market or any unsuccessful party to pay, jointly or severally, to the applicant the costs, expenses and fees, incurred in both the present proceedings and the opposition and appeal proceedings before the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: the applicant
Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘zerorh+’ for the goods in classes 9, 18 and 25 — application No 2004547
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: zero International Holding GmbH & Co. KG
Mark or sign cited: the national figurative mark ‘zero’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 and the national word mark ‘zero’ for goods in class 9
Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94
The applicant claims that the Board erred in its interpretation of the above provision insofar as it didn't take into account the visual, phonetic and conceptual differences between the goods to which the conflicting trade marks relate.