Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 June 2005 in Case T-186/04 Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for registration of Community work mark SPAFORM — Earlier word marks SPA and SPA THERMES — Partial rejection of the opposition — Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95)
Date: 2005-08-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), mineral water, plumbing equipment, pressure equipment, trade-mark law

20.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 205/21

1. Dismisses the action;

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

of 15 June 2005

(1) OJ C 71 of 20.3.2004

in Case T-186/04 Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de
Spa SA/NV v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Appli-
cation for registration of Community work mark SPAFORM
— Earlier word marks SPA and SPA THERMES — Partial
rejection of the opposition — Rule 18(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 2868/95)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

(2005/C 205/38)

of 22 June 2005

(Language of the case: English)

in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

(Community trade mark — Application for a Community
figurative mark containing the verbal element
‘Turkish
Power’ — Earlier word mark POWER — Opposition proceed-
ings — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 205/37)

(Language of the case: German)

In Case T-34/04: Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, estab-
lished in Mühlheim (Germany), represented by B. Piepenbrink,
lawyer, against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the
other parties to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of
Appeal having been Joachim Bälz and Friemar Hiller, residing
in Stuttgart (Germany) — action brought against the decision
of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25 November
2003 (Case R 620/2002-2) concerning opposition proceedings
between Tengelmann Warenhandelsgesellschaft and Bälz and
Hiller — the Court of First
Instance (Fourth Chamber),
composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas,
Judges; C. Kristensen, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a
judgment on 22 June 2005, in which it:

1. Dismisses the application;

In Case T-186/04, Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de Spa
SA/NV, established in Spa (Belgium), represented by L. de
Brouwer, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, against Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) (Agent: G. Schneider), the other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener
before the Court of First Instance, being Spaform Ltd, estab-
lished in Southampton (United Kingdom), represented by J.
Gardner and A. Howard, Barristers, application for annulment
of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 25
February 2004 (Case R 827/2002-4) relating to opposition
proceedings between Spa Monopole, compagnie fermière de
Spa SA/NV and Spaform Ltd — the Court of First Instance
(Second Chamber), composed of
J. Pirrung, President, N.J.
Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar,
for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 15 June 2005, in which
it:

1. Annuls the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office
(Trade Marks and
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) (OHIM) of 25 February 2004 (Case R 827/2002-4)
in part, in so far as it declares inadmissible the opposition based
on Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20
December 1993 on the Community trade mark, as regards the
SPA mark registered in Benelux under No 389 230;

2. Dismisses the remainder of the application;

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

the applicant;

2. Orders the applicant to pay the costs.

4. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 106 of 30.4.2004

(1) OJ C 201 of 7.8.2004