Case T-339/05: Action brought on  9 September 2005  — MacLean-Fogg/OHIM
Date: 2005-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), bolt and screw industry, trade-mark law

C 296/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.11.2005

Action brought on 9 September 2005 — MacLean-Fogg/
OHIM

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-339/05)

(2005/C 296/60)

Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
BVM S.p.A. (Bologna, Italy)

Language of the case: English

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant(s): MacLean-Fogg Company (Mundelein, USA) [repre-
sented by: H. Eichmann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-
Falter, M. Kinkeldey, K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Alle-
kotte, E. Bertram, K. Lochner, B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner,
C. Schmitt, B. Mehnert, P. Lübbe, S. Brötje, lawyers]

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 23 May 2005 in Case R 434/2003-4 on the
grounds that it does not comply with Art 8 (1)(b) of Regu-
lation No 40/94;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (Trade-
marks and Designs) in the case R 1122/2004-1 of June 20,
2005;

— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defen-

dant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LOKTHREAD’
for goods in class 6 (bolts, bolts of metal, nuts, nuts of metal)
— application No 3 440 666

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application for all goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the trade mark has to be considered as
a whole and not as composed of two English words and thus
possesses a minimum degree of distinctiveness.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Eagle’
goods in classes 3, 18 and 25 — application No 1 595 909

for

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
BVM S.p.A.

Mark or sign cited: The national and international figurative
mark and word mark ‘Blue Eagle’ for goods in classes 3, 18 and
25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the
contested goods

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as there is no likelihood of confusion between
the conflicting trade marks. The overall impression of the two
trade marks is substantially different and the component ‘eagle’
is not the dominating element of the opposition trade mark.

Action brought on 14 September 2005 — Henkel v OHIM

(Case T -342/05)

(2005/C 296/62)

Action brought on 13 September 2005 — Adler Mode-
märkte/OHIM

Language in which the application was lodged: German

(Case T-340/05)

(2005/C 296/61)

Parties

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant(s): Henkel KGaA (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented
by: C. Osterrieth, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant(s): Adler Modemärkte GmbH (Haibach, Germany)
[represented by: R. Kaase, lawyer]

Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
of OHIM: Serra Y Roca S.A. (Barcelona, Spain)