Case T-190/04: Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2004-08-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), sparkling wine, trade-mark law

C 201/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.8.2004

Action brought on 24 May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A.
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Action brought on 27 May 2004 by MIP Metro Group
Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG against the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case T-190/04)

(2004/C 201/42)

(Language of the case: French)

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 24
May 2004 by Société Freixenet S.A., established in Sant Sadurní
d'Anoia (Spain), represented by F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, E. De
Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 11
February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4) and find that the appli-
cation for Community trade mark No 32532 is to be
published in accordance with Article 40 of Regulation No
40/94;

— in the alternative, annul the decision of the Fourth Board of
Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market of 11 February 2004 (Case R 97/2001-4);

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

to pay the costs.

(Case T-191/04)

(2004/C 201/43)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 27
May 2004 by MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH &
Co. KG, Düsseldorf (Germany), represented by R. Kaase, lawyer.

Tesco Stores Limited was also a party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
sought:

Three-dimensional mark in the
form of a white polished bottle
(application No 32532)

Goods or services:

Goods
wines)

in Class 33 (sparkling

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the

OHIM of 23 March 2004 in Case R 486/2003-1;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs.

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Exam-

Rejection of the application

Pleas in law and main arguments:

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

Infringement of Article 73 of
Regulation No 40/94, in so far as
the decision of
the Board of
is based on a certain
Appeal
number of
in respect of
which the applicant was able to
submit observations, and Article
7(1)(b) and (3) of that regulation,
inasmuch as the trade mark in
question is intrinsically distinctive

facts

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

MIP METRO Group Intellectual
Property GmbH & Co. KG

Community trade mark
sought:

The figurative mark ‘METRO’
in
relation to goods which are not
issue in these proceedings
the
(application No 779116)

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Tesco Stores Limited