Case T-304/07: Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Calzaturificio Frau v OHIM — Camper
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, leather, trade-mark law

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/23

— In the alternative, annul the contested decision and refer the
case back to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
the

the appeal proceedings and of

to pay the costs of
proceedings before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Sony Computer Entertain-
ment Europe Limited

Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘BUZZ!’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28 and 41 (Application
No 4 441 044).

application made by the applicant on 20 February 2004 in
relation to the word mark ‘Puzzle’, and in so doing annul
the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 5 June 2007
in Case R 911/2006-2 and the decision of the Opposition
Division of 29 June 2006 No B 802 340;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings

including the costs incurred by any intervening party.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The Applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Puzzle’
goods in classes 16, 32 and 33 (Application No 3 674 651).

for

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

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Viña Carta Vieja S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Austrian word mark ‘BUZZ!’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 38.

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal.

Mark or sign cited in opposition:
In particular the word mark
‘MONKEY PUZZLE’ for goods in class 33 (Community trade
mark No 3 238 144).

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial grant of the opposi-
tion.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) caused by disregard of evidence of the existence of
the mark on which opposition is based.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division, to the extent that it granted the opposition
for goods in class 32.

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

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion
between the opposing trade marks.

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

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

Action brought on 7 August 2007 — Nölle v OHIM —
Viña Carta Vieja (Puzzle)

(Case T-303/07)

(2007/C 235/42)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Jürgen Nölle (Rheinberg, Germany) (represented by: J.
Reinartz, lawyer)

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

Parties

Action brought on 10 August 2007 — Calzaturificio Frau v
OHIM — Camper

(Case T-304/07)

(2007/C 235/43)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Viña Carta Vieja S.A.

Applicant: Calzaturificio Frau SpA (San Giovanni Ilarione VR,
Italy) (represented by: A. Rizzoli, lawyer)

Form of order sought

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

— Reject in its entirety the opposition of 24 February 2005
brought by Viña Carta Vieja S.A. against the trade mark

Other part to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Camper S.L.

C 235/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

Form of order sought

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

— declare that the present application and the annexes thereto

are admissible;

— annul the decision of the Board of Appeal (points 1, 2 and
3 of the operative part) in so far as it annuls the contested
decision, rejects the application for registration in respect of
all the goods in question and orders the applicant to pay the
costs incurred by the opposing party in the opposition
proceedings and the appeal;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

for Harmonisation
in the Internal Market of 31 May 2007 in Appeal
No R 1281/2006-1 concerning trade mark Application
No 4 869 319;

the Office

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Calzaturificio Frau

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘AIRSHOWER’
for goods in class 11 (Application No 4 869 319).

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark consisting
of a black arch sloping to the right (application for registration
No 3.388.097) for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Camper S.L.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish national three-dimen-
sional trade mark in the form of a shoe for goods in Class 25, a
number of English national figurative trade marks representing,
in various forms, sloping arches for goods in Class 25 and two
figurative Community trade marks also in the shape of an arch
for goods in Class 18.

Decision of the Opposition Division: partial rejection of the opposi-
tion.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: annulment of the contested deci-
sion and refusal of the application for registration.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 on the Community trade mark and of Article 73 of
that regulation.

Action brought on 14 August 2007 — Hansgrohe v OHIM
(AIRSHOWER)

Decision of the Examiner: partial rejection of the Application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the Appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), because the sign applied for is of a distinctive
character and is not descriptive.

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

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

Action brought on 15 August 2007 — Kingdom of the
Netherlands v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-309/07)

(2007/C 235/45)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of
Wissels, M. de Grave and Y de Vries, as Agents)

the Netherlands

(represented by C.

(Case T-307/07)

(2007/C 235/44)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Hansgrohe AG (Schiltach, Germany) (represented by
S. Weidert and J. Zehnsdorf, lawyers)

— Annul Decision 2007/395 insofar as it is based on the
Commission's view that it is necessary for the Commission
to approve under Article 95(6) EC the maintenance of the
Netherlands rules relating to the use of short-chain chlori-
nated paraffins that are not listed in Directive 2002/45;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.