# C_2005069EN.01001901.xml

| 19.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

---

Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-467/04)

(2005/C 69/36)

Language in which the application was submitted: French

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 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami, residing in Milan (Italy), represented by Paolo Guido Beduschi and Silvia Giudici, lawyers.

The Stilton Cheese Makers Association was also a party to the proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

—

establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings;

| — | annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 982/2002-2 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 982/2002-2 and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

| — | order the Office to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| --- | --- |
| Community trade mark sought: | Word mark ‘GERONIMO STILTON’ for goods and/or services in Class 16 (books etc.), Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28 (games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.), Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and Class 41 (services rendered in the field of education etc.) – Application No 1345503 |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | The Stilton Cheese Makers Association |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National word mark ‘STILTON’; registered designations of origin WHITE STILTON CHEESE and BLUE STILTON CHEESE |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition allowed for Classes 29 and 30 |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | The Board of Appeal held that as a result of amendments to the specification of the relevant goods in accordance with a joint letter from the parties of 4 June 2004, the opposition had been withdrawn and the proceedings had therefore been terminated. Since according to the Board of Appeal the only question to be decided was the allocation of costs, each party was ordered to bear the fees and expenses of the opposition and appeal proceedings which it had itself incurred. |
| Pleas in law: | The pleas relied on are identical to those put forward in Case T-466/04 brought by the same applicant. |

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark sought:

Word mark ‘GERONIMO STILTON’ for goods and/or services in Class 16 (books etc.), Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28 (games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.), Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and Class 41 (services rendered in the field of education etc.) – Application No 1345503

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

The Stilton Cheese Makers Association

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

National word mark ‘STILTON’; registered designations of origin WHITE STILTON CHEESE and BLUE STILTON CHEESE

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Opposition allowed for Classes 29 and 30

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

The Board of Appeal held that as a result of amendments to the specification of the relevant goods in accordance with a joint letter from the parties of 4 June 2004, the opposition had been withdrawn and the proceedings had therefore been terminated. Since according to the Board of Appeal the only question to be decided was the allocation of costs, each party was ordered to bear the fees and expenses of the opposition and appeal proceedings which it had itself incurred.

Pleas in law:

The pleas relied on are identical to those put forward in Case T-466/04 brought by the same applicant.

---