Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2006:278
Date: 2006-09-27
Language of the case: Spanish
Court formation: First Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Figurative marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Spain

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-172/04) Language of the case: Spanish 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 17 May 2004 by Telefónica S.A. established in Madrid, represented by Mr Andrea Sirimarco, lawyer. The applicant claims that the Court should: - annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 12 March 2004 in Case R 676/2002-1; - register the Community trade mark No 1.694.157 "emergia" (figurative mark) to designate "telecommunications by networks of undersea cables for the electronic transmission of voice, data and video communications" in class 38 of the International Classification; and - order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market and any party entering an appearance as intervener to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments: Applicant for Community trade mark:The applicant. Community trade mark sought:Figurative mark "emergia"- application No 1.694.157 for products and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42. Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:D. Branch. Mark or sign cited in opposition.Community word mark "EMERGEA" for products and services including, in class 38, "data transmission service by national and international networks and communications by computer terminals". Decision of the Opposition Division:Opposition upheld in part in so far as the opposition concerned "tele-communications, communications by computer networks" in class 38. Decision of the Board of Appeal:Appeal dismissed. Pleas in law:Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 (likelihood of confusion) wrongly applied. ____________