Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:124
Date: 2005-04-13
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: Second Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Word marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y Beltrán S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Case T-353/02) (Language of the case: to be determined in accordance with Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure ( Application in Spanish) An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 18 November 2002 by Duarte y Beltrán S.A. of Santander (Spain), represented by Natalia Moya Fernández. The applicant claims that the Court should: (annul the decision of 6 August 2002 of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) in Case R-407/2001 and the corrigendum of 16 September 2002 thereto; (reject Opposition B 35073 in its entirety; (uphold the claims of the applicant and direct the relevant Opposition Division of OHIM to proceed to register the mark in question; (order the defendant to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for the Community trade markDuarte y Beltrán S.A. Community trade mark applied forINTEA ( application no 99 747 for certain goods in classes 3, 16 and 21 Proprietor of the trade mark or signMIRATO S.p.A. invoked in the opposition procedure Trade mark or sign opposed:Word marks INTESA (two Italian marks, one international mark and a Greek, a Finnish, a Swedish, a UK and an Irish mark), for goods in classes 9, 14, 18 and 21, in the case of one of the two Italian marks, and class 3 in the case of the others. The opposition was directed against the goods mentioned in the application as being in classes 3 and 21. Ruling of the Opposition Division:opposition partially upheld (risk of confusion in the case of goods of class 3). Decision of the Board of Appeal:appeal dismissed. Pleas in law(relevance of the phonetic difference between the conflicting marks (conceptual difference between the marks (no risk of confusion between the conflicting marks ____________