Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2005:82
Date: 2005-03-08
Language of the case: German
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: Austria

INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 8 March 2005 —
Leder & Schuh v OHIM — Schuhpark Fascies (JELLO SCHUHPARK)
(Case T-32/03)
Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark
‘Schuhpark’ — Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ —
Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Community trade mark — Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark
— Relative grounds for refusal — Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical
or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services — Likelihood of
confusion with the earlier mark — Word Marks JELLO SCHUHPARK and
Schuhpark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see para. 51)
Re
ACTION against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27
November 2002, in the corrected version of 9 December 2002 (Case R 494/1999-3),
relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder &
Schuh AG.
Information relating to the case
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Leder & Schuh AG
Community trade mark sought: The word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ for
goods in Classes 18, 25 and 28 — Application
No 107367
Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the
opposition proceedings:
Schuhpark Fascies GmbH
Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word mark ‘Schuhpark’ for goods in
Class 25
I - 1*
INFORMATION ON UNPUBLISHED DECISIONS
Decision of the Opposition Division Dismissal of the applicant's application for
goods in Class 18. Dismissal of the opposition
as to the remainder
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal brought by the
applicant
Operative part
The Court:
1. Dismisses the application;
2. Orders the applicant to bear the costs.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, Extended
Composition) of 17 March 2005 — Eurocoton v Council
(Case T-192/98)
Dumping — Failure by the Council to adopt a Commission proposal for a regulation
imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty — Absence of simple majority necessary for
the adoption of a regulation — Obligation to state reasons
1. Actions for annulment — Actionable measures — Definition — Measures
producing binding legal effects — Failure to adopt a proposal for a regulation
imposing an anti-dumping duty — Effect of the regulatory nature of the anti­
dumping procedure — None (Art. 230 EC; Council Regulation No 384/96,
Art. 6(9)) (see paras 30-32)
I -2*