Case T-105/02: Action brought on 6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord GmbH against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade marks and designs)
Date: 2002-06-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade mark, trade-mark law

C 144/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.6.2002

Action brought on 6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord
GmbH against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade marks and designs)

Decision of the Oppo-
sition Division:

(Case T-105/02)

Decision of the Board of
Appeal:

(2002/C 144/110)

Grounds of claim:

Rejection of the application for
goods in classes 20 and 24, rejec-
tion of the opposition as regards
goods in class 10

Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal

— No likelihood of confusion
under Article 8 of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1);

— No similarity between the

opposing marks;

— Incorrect division of the tra-
de mark into its individual
components;

— Failure to follow the case-
law of the Court of Justice
overall
concerning
trade
impression of
mark;

the

the

— Right of a competitor in the
market to combine the desig-
nation of his main products
with the name of his firm;

— Opposing mark not capable

of protection.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA against
the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-114/02)

(2002/C 144/111)

(Language of the Case: French)

the

(Language of
case to be determined in accordance with
Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure — Language in which the
application was drafted: German)

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
6 April 2002 by Matratzen Concord GmbH, of Cologne
(Germany), represented by W.-W. Wodrich, lawyer, with an
address for service in Luxembourg. The other party before the
Board of Appeal was Hukla Germany, S.A., of Castellbisbal
(Spain).

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Set aside the decision of the defendant (Second Board of
Appeal) of 25 January 2002 (reference of the appeal R
1045/2000-2);

— Dismiss the opposition of the opponent of 17 December

1998 (reference B 115 057);

— Order the defendant and the opponent to pay all the
costs of the procedure before the Opposition Division
and the Board of Appeal and of the present proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

The applicant

trade

mark
Figurative
‘MATRATZEN CONCORD’
for
goods in classes 10, 20 and 24 —
Application No 739722

Hukla Germany, S.A.

Community trade mark
applied for:

Proprietor of the right to
the trade mark or sign
asserted by way of oppo-
sition in the opposition
proceedings:

sign
Trade mark or
asserted by way of oppo-
sition:

Spanish word
‘MATRATZEN’
class 20

trade mark
in
goods

for

An action against the Commission of the European Communi-
ties was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 15 April 2002 by BaByliss SA, of
Montrouge (France), represented by Jacques-Philippe Gunther,
lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul

the decision adopted by the Commission on
8 January 2002 in the case of COMP/M.2621 SEB v
MOULINEX;

— order the Commission to pay all the costs.