Case C-314/05 P: Appeal brought on  10 August 2005  by Creative Technology Ltd against the judgment delivered on  25 May 2005  by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-352/02 between Creative Technology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), 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 José Vila Ortiz
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, audiovisual equipment, electronic equipment, recording equipment, trade-mark law

C 296/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Appeal brought on 10 August 2005 by Creative Tech-
nology Ltd against the judgment delivered on 25 May
2005 by the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities in Case T-352/02 between
Creative Technology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM),
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 José Vila Ortiz

(Case C-314/05 P)

(2005/C 296/23)

(Language of the case: English)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 25 May 2005 by
the Fourth Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in case T-352/02 (1) between Creative Tech-
nology Ltd and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), 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 José Vila Ortiz, was brought before the Court of
Justice of the European Communities on 10 August 2005 by
Creative Technology Ltd, established in Singapore (Singapore),
represented by Stephen Jones and Paul Rawlinson, Solicitors.

The Appellant claims that the Court should:

i) Set aside the judgment

ii) Set aside the Decision of the Board of Appeal

iii) Annul decision of the Opposition Division No 145/2001

be annulled

iv) Allow the Applicant's Trade Mark to proceed to registration

v) Order that the Opponent pays to the Applicant/Appellant
the costs incurred by the Applicant/Appellant in connection
with this appeal and the appeal before the CFI, the Board of
Appeal and the opposition before the Opposition Division.

nise that the goods in question are not casual purchases but
bought by consumers after careful consideration and in particu-
lar that they failed to appreciate the proper characteristics of
the reasonably well-informed and observant and circumspect
member of the relevant public in that such a member of the
relevant public in this case would not buy those goods without
close examination.

Accordingly,
it was wrong of the Court of First Instance to
uphold the decisions of the Opposition Division and the Fourth
Board of Appeal and reject the application in its entirety.

Hence, it is submitted that this appeal against the decision of
the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the
Court of First Instance ought to be allowed, and the decisions
of the Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and
the Court of First
to be annulled in their
entirety. The Applicant/Appellant also seeks costs in these
appeal proceedings and the proceedings before the Opposition
Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court of First
Instance.

Instance ought

(1) OJ C182, 23.07.05, p. 35

Appeal brought on 28 July 2005 (received by fax on 27
July 2005) by Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH against
the judgment of
Instance (Fourth
the Court of First
Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhan-
delsgesellschaft mbH v Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-324/05 P)

(2005/C 296/24)

Pleas in law and main arguments:

(Language of the case: German)

The Appellant submits that the Community Trade Mark Appli-
cation for the word PC WORKS is not confusingly similar to
the earlier Spanish trade mark for the figurative mark that
includes the words W WORK PRO. It is submitted that the
Opposition Division, the Fourth Board of Appeal and the Court
of First Instance erred in their respective analysis of the global
appreciation of the marks in question and in particular the
undue weight given to the WORK element present in both
marks.

It is further submitted that the Opposition Division, the Fourth
Board of Appeal and the Court of First Instance failed to recog-

On 28 July 2005 (received by fax on 27 July 2005), Plus Ware-
nhandelsgesellschaft mbH, represented by P.H. Kort, M.W.
Husemann and B. Piepenbrink, of Kort Rechtsanwälte (GBR),
Ellerstraße 123/125, D-40227 Düsseldorf, Germany, brought
an appeal before the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities (Fourth Chamber) of 22 June 2005 in
Case T-34/04 Plus Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM).