Case C-171/06 P: Appeal brought on  31 March 2006  by T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber) delivered on  12 January 2006  in Case T-147/03: Devinlec Développement Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM), T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve Ticaret AS
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, clock and watch industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, trade-mark law

C 121/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.5.2006

Defendant: The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and
Rural Affairs

Interested Party: The Melton Mowbray Pork Pie Association

Questions referred

Where the specification in an application for a protected
geographical
indication (PGI) in respect of ‘Melton Mowbray
Pork Pies’ made pursuant to Council Regulation 2081/92/EEC
on the protection of geographical indications and designations
of origin for agricultural products and foodstuffs (‘the Regu-
to
lation’) defines the relevant geographical area pursuant
Article 4(2)(c) of the Regulation as

the town of Melton Mowbray and its surrounding region
bounded as follows:

— to the North by the A52 from the M1 and the A1 and

including the city of Nottingham;

— to the East by the A1 from the A52 to the A45 and

including the towns of Grantham and Stamford;

— to the West by the M1 from the A52 and the A45; and

— to the South by the A45 from the M1 and the A1 and

including the town of Northampton

1. are the requirements of Article 2(2)(b) of the Regulation
capable of being satisfied insofar as the proposed PGI would
apply to products produced and/or processed and/or
prepared in places other than that whose name appears in
the PGI;

2.

if so, what criteria must be applied in delimiting the defined
geographical area referred to in Articles 2(2)(b) and 4(2)(c)
of the Regulation?

Appeal brought on 31 March 2006 by T.I.M.E. ART Ulus-
lararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret A.S. against the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber)
delivered on 12 January 2006 in Case T-147/03: Devinlec
Développement
Innovation Leclerc SA v Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM), T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti
ve Ticaret AS

(Case C-171/06 P)

(2006/C 121/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: T.I.M.E. ART Uluslararasi Saat Ticareti ve dis Ticaret
A.S. (represented by: M. Francetti and F. Jacobacci, avvocati)

Other parties to the proceedings: Devinlec Développement Innova-
tion Leclerc SA, Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

Form of order sought

The applicant claim that the Court should:

— reverse the judgment issued on 12 January 2006 by the
Instance in Case T-147/03, because it

Court of First
breaches article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No 40/94 (1);

— admit the conclusions submitted by T.I.M.E during the first-

level judgment in its brief dated 28 October 2003.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that the judgment of the Court of First
Instance should be set aside on the grounds that the Court
infringed and misapplied article 8(1)(b) of EC Regulation No
40/94 by:

— Failing to take account of the distinctive strength of the
earlier trademark (‘QUANTIEME’), an essential element that
must be taken into account when assessing likelihood of
confusion;

— Concluding that,

the conceptual distance
between the two marks, there is still a risk of confusion in
view of their phonetic and visual similarities.

in spite of

(1) JO L 011, p.1