Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 25.3.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 74/31 |

---

Action brought on 16 February 2006 — Antartica/OHIM

(Case T-47/06)

(2006/C 74/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Antartica S.r.l. (Rome, Italy) [represented by: E. Racca, lawyer]

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc. (Washington D.C., USA)

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM, of 7 December 2005, in case R 752/2004 — 2, on the grounds that it does not comply with Article 63 (2) and Article 8 (5) of Regulation No. 40/94 and Article 5.1.2. of the Directive No 89/104/CEE; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods in classes 9, 12, 14, 25 and 28

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.

Mark or sign cited: Community word trade mark ‘Nasdaq’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38 and 42 as well as earlier well known mark ‘Nasdaq’ in all Members States of the European Union

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejects opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annuls the decision of the opposition division and rejects the application

Pleas in law: Violation of Articles 63 (2) and 8 (5) of Regulation No 40/94 as well as Article 5.1.2. of Directive No. 89/104/CEE; the applicant submits that the earlier unregistered word mark was not, in fact, invoked in the notice of opposition. It also contests the findings that the reputation of the stock exchange index ‘nasdaq’ is the same as the reputation of the trade mark of the same name. It finally submits that the notion of reputation in Regulation 40/94 and Directive 89/104 is not the same as notoriety under the Paris Convention.

---

[Top](#document1)