Case T-35/07: Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Leche Celta, S.L. v OHIM
Date: 2007-04-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), fats, food fat, milk, milk product, trade-mark law

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/43

Action brought on 7 February 2007 — Goncharov v
OHIM — DSB (DSBW)

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Leche Celta, S.L. v
OHIM

(Case T-34/07)

(2007/C 82/92)

(Case T-35/07)

(2007/C 82/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Karen Goncharov (Moscow, Russian Federation)
(represented by: G. Hasselblatt und A. Späth, lawyers)

Parties

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
DSB (Copenhagen, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trademarks
and Designs) (OHIM) of 4 December 2006 (Case R 1330/
2005-2);

— Order OHIM to pay its own costs and those of the appli-

cant;

— Order DSB, should it intervene in the proceedings, to pay its

own costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Karen Goncharov.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark DSBW for
services
in Classes 39, 41, 43 and 44 (Application
No 2 852 143).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: DSB

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark DSB (Community
trade mark No 2 292 290) for services in Classes 35-37, 39, 41
and 42, whereas the opposition was directed against registration
in Classes 39, 41 and 43.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of Opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested deci-
sion and grant of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal wrongly finds that the registra-
tion of the mark DSBW is precluded by Article 8(1) (b) of Regu-
lation 40/94; (1) there is no likelihood of confusion between the
opposing marks.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Applicant: Leche Celta, S.L.
(Puentedeume, La Coruna, Spain)
(represented by: J.A. Calderón Chavero, T. Villate Consonni and
A. Yanez Manglano, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Celia, SA

Form of order sought

— The annulment of the decision of the 1st Board of Appeal
of OHIM issued on 5 December 2006 in case R-294/2006-
4

— Consequently, the annulment of that part of the decision of
21 December 2005 in proceedings B657132 which rejects
the objection lodged on behalf of the applicant, and allows
the application for the contested mark within class 29 for
milk and milk products, edible oils and fats

— Granting of the claim of the applicant, and an order that
Opposition Division reject the registration of the relevant
mark in these specific products

— If OHIM defends the action, an order for costs against it in

the present proceedings; and dismissal of its claims

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Celia, SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Celia’
for
products and services within classes 16, 29 and 38 (application
No. 2.977.221)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘CELTA’ for
products within class 29

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the objection

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the appeal

C 82/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.4.2007

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) given that there is a likelihood of association and a
likelihood of confusion between the marks at issue.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as there was no likelihood of confusion and the
Board of Appeal failed to reach proper conclusions about both
the nature of the average consumer of the relevant services and
the nature of the relevant market.

Action brought on 12 February 2007 — Zipcar v OHIM —
Canary Islands Car (ZIPCAR)

(Case T-36/07)

(2007/C 82/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Action brought on 16 February 2007 — Mohamed El
Morabit v Council of the European Union

(Case T-37/07)

(2007/C 82/95)

Language of the case: Dutch

Applicant: Zipcar,
Inc.
Elmslie, Solicitor, and N. Saunders, Barrister)

(Cambridge, USA)

(represented by: M.

Parties

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

Applicant: Mohamed El Morabit
(represented by: U. Sarikaya, lawyer)

(Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canary
Islands Car SL (Lanzarote, Spain)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated
30 November 2006 in its entirety and remit the application
to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to allow it to proceed;

— order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ZIPCAR’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application
No 3 139 375

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Canary Islands Car SL

— Annul the contested decision of the Council.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant contests the Council decision placing him on the
list of persons, groups and entities that are subject to the restric-
tive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 2580/
2001 of 27 December 2001 on specific restrictive measures
directed against certain persons and entities with a view to
combating terrorism (1).

The applicant submits that, although he has been found guilty
by a court of participating in a criminal organisation with a
terrorist aim, he has appealed against the judgment. He submits
that there is a real chance that he will be acquitted on appeal.
The Council's decision is therefore premature.

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘CICAR’ for services
in class 39

(1) OJ 2001 L 344, p. 70.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in relation
to the contested services in class 39