Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 July 2004 in Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier word mark HIPPOVIT — Application for Community word mark HIPOVITON — Genuine use of the earlier trade mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Right to be heard)
Date: 2004-09-25
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), animal nutrition, trade mark, trade-mark law

C 239/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

25.9.2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 30 June 2004

of 8 July 2004

in Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmens-
beratung und Informationssysteme mbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

in Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for verbal mark ‘M+M EUROdATA’ — Earlier verbal
mark EURODATA TV — Relative grounds for refusal —
Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings —
Earlier word mark HIPPOVIT — Application for Community
word mark HIPOVITON — Genuine use of the earlier trade
mark — Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
— Right to be heard)

(2004/C 239/32)

(Language of the case: French)

(2004/C 239/33)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-317/01: M+M Gesellschaft für Unternehmensbera-
tung und Informationssysteme mbH, established in Frankfurt
am Main (Germany), represented by M. Treis, lawyer, against
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and U. Pfleghar), the
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) being Mediametrie SA, established in Paris
(France), represented originally by D. Dupuis-Latour and then
by S. Szilvasi, lawyers — action brought against the decision of
the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 2 October
2001 in Case R 698/2000-1 concerning opposition proceed-
ings between Mediametrie SA and M+M Gesellschaft für Unter-
nehmensberatung und Informationssysteme mbH — the Court
of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung,
President, A.W.H. Meij and N.J. Forwood,
Judges; D. Chris-
tensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment
on 30 June 2004, in which it:

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
of 2 October 2001 in Case R 698/2000-1, save in so far as it
referred the case back to the Opposition Division for the latter to
act on the application for a trade mark in respect of the goods and
services covered by that application and falling within Classes 9,
16 and 42;

In Case T-334/01: MFE Marienfelde GmbH, established in
Hamburg (Germany), represented by S. Rojahn and S. Freytag,
lawyers, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: E. Joly and
G. Schneider), the other party to the proceedings before the
OHIM Board of Appeal, intervening before the Court of First
Instance, being Vétoquinol AG, fomerly Chassot AG, estab-
lished in Bern (Switzerland), represented by A. Kockläuner,
lawyer — action brought against the decision of the Fourth
Board of Appeal of OHIM of 26 September 2001 (Case R 578/
2000-4),
relating to opposition proceedings between MFE
Marienfelde GmbH and Vétoquinol AG — the Court of First
Instance (Second Chamber), composed of N.J. Forwood, Presi-
dent,
Judges; D. Christensen,
administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 July
2004, in which it:

J. Pirrung and A.W.H. Meij,

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office
(Trade Marks and

for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) of 26 September 2001 (Case R 578/2000-4);

2. Dismisses the remainder of the action;

2. Orders the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the applicant's costs;

3. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by

the applicant;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

4. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 56 of 2.3.2002.

(1) OJ C 68 of 16.3.2002.