Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 205/34 |

---

Action brought on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-240/05)

(2005/C 205/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 1 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden), was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | annul the contested decision of the First Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 729/2004-1); |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | declare opposition proceedings B490 336 inadmissible; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne by the OHIM. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for Community trade mark: | The applicant |
| Community trade mark concerned: | Coloured three-dimensional mark in black and yellow, in the form of a tool for goods in Class 7 (manually operated portable electric power tools etc.) |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Atlas Copco Aktiebolag |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | Non-registered trade marks and signs, used in the course of trade in all Member States for power tools. |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejects opposition as inadmissible |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Annuls the contested decision and remits the case to the Opposition Division for further prosecution |
| Pleas in law: | The applicant claims that the opposition should have been declared inadmissible as it did not identify sufficiently clearly the earlier marks and signs relied on, in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regulation No 2868/95[(1)](#ntr1-C_2005205EN.01003401-E0001). |

---

[Top](#document1)