Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/32 |

---

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Anvil Knitwear v OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)

(Case T-179/07)

(2007/C 170/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Anvil Knitwear, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers, and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aprile e Aprile Srl (Frazione Funo, Italy)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March 2007 in Case R 1076/2006-2 concerning the opposition based on German trade mark registration No 30 011 766 ‘ANVIL’ against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be annulled; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | the opposition against Community trade mark application No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be granted and application for registration of Community trade mark No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be rejected; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | defendant pay the costs of the proceedings. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aprile e Aprile Srl

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Aprile’ for goods in classes 18 and 25 — application No 3 800 232

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘ANVIL’ for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not evaluate the aspects of the partial identity and partial similarity of the goods in question as well as the increased distinctiveness of the earlier mark. Furthermore the Board of Appeal did neither objectively nor without prejudice state the reasons on which its decision was based, nor did it take the uncontested facts of the proceedings properly into account.

---

[Top](#document1)