Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2006:81
Date: 2006-03-15
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: Netherlands

Notice for the OJ Action brought on 28 January 2004 by Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) (Case T-31/04) Language of the case: Spanish An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 28 January 2004 by Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V., established in Amsterdam (Netherlands), represented by E. Armijo Chávarri and A. Castán Pérez-Gómez, letrados en ejercicio. The applicant claims that the Court should: - Annul the OHMI decision (First Board of Appeal) of 12 November 2003 in joined cases R 419/2001-1 and R 530/2001-1; - Order OHIM to pay the costs. Pleas in law and main arguments: Applicant for the Community trade mark: Jesús Gómez Frías Community trade mark applied for:Figurative mark 'EUROMASTER' - Application No 728.295 for services in Classes 39 (transport and storage of vehicles and accessories therefor) and 41 (organisation of sports competitions) Proprietor of the opposing trade mark or sign:The applicant Opposing trade mark or sign:Word marks 'EUROMASTER': Spanish (Nos 1.613.599 and 1.613.600), French (No 1.624.667), Austrian (172.243), Benelux (No 495.020), Danish (No VR 08 0221991), Finnish (No 119.689), English (Nos 1.454.805 and 1.455.074), Greek (No 109.184), Irish (No B 146.109), Italian (No 608.701), Portuguese (Nos 270.847 and 270.848) and Swedish (No 245.822) for goods and services in Classes 12, 16 and 37 Decision of Opposition Division:Upheld for opposition in respect of services in Class 39 and dismissal thereof in respect of services in Class 41 Decision of Board of Appeal:Dismissal of the appeal Pleas in law:Incorrect implementation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and infringement of Article 73 thereof ____________