Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

13.12.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 304/31

**Action brought on 15 September 2003 by ATOMIC**
**Austria GmbH against the Office for Harmonisation in**
**the Internal Market (Trade marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-318/03)**

(2003/C 304/57)

_(Language of the case: German)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
15 September 2003 by ATOMIC Austria GmbH, represented
by G. Kucsko, lawyer. Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas de Onil
S.A., Alicante (Spain) was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—
annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 July
2003 relating to opposition procedure No B 442 873;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Mark
to reimburse the costs.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicant for Com- Fabricas Agrupadas de Muñecas
munity trade mark: de Onil S.A.

Community trade mark Word mark ‘ATOMIC BLITZ’ for
sought: goods in Class 28 (including
games and playthings; gymnastic
and sporting articles not included
in other classes)

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

Mark or sign cited in Austrian word mark ‘ATOMIC’
opposition: for inter alia goods in Class 28
(including sporting and gymnastic
articles and games)

Decision of the Oppo- Rejection of the opposition
sition Division:

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the applicant’s appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: — the decision is incorrect
because the Board of Appeal
did not find against the
Opposition Division for failing to take account of all the
evidence adduced;

— in the alternative, the
decision is incorrect because
the Board failed to find that
the Opposition Division’s
failure to draw the applicant’s attention to the missing documents contrary to
Rule 20(2) of Regulation
(EC) No 2868/95 constituted
a procedural irregularity;

— in the alternative, the
decision was incorrect
because the Board of Appeal
failed to hold that the Opposition Division’s failure to
point out the altered practice
was an infringement of the
principle of the protection of
legitimate expectations.

**Action brought on 3 October 2003 by El Corte Inglés S.A.**
**against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal**
**Market (OHIM)**

**(Case T-342/03)**

(2003/C 304/58)

_(Language of the case: Spanish)_

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 3 October 2003 by El Corte
Inglés, with its registered office in Madrid, represented by Juan
Luis Rivas Zurdo and Emilio López Leiva, lawyers.