Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

C 59/36 EN Official Journal of the European Union 6.3.2004

Grounds of the appeal: Wrong application of Article
8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 (likelihood of confusion), failure to state reasons and misuse
of powers by manifest error of
assessment and inconsistency
with the Examiner’s decision of
23 November 1999 regarding
partial rejection of the registration
of the mark concerned.

**Action brought on 9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook**
**Limited against the Office for Harmonisation in the**
**Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)**

**(Case T-8/04)**

(2004/C 59/57)

_(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of_
_the Rules of Procedure — language in which the case was submitted:_
_English)_

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
9 January 2004 by Muswellbrook Limited, Dublin, Ireland,
represented by Ms P. Koch Moreno, lawyer. Friedrich Grimm
and Engelbert Rolli were also party to the proceedings before
the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— declare that the decision which was issued on 5 November
2003 by the First Board of Appeal of OHIM, which
dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal against the resolution of
29 April 2002 in opposition procedure No B 1181/
2002, which dismissed the opposition that was lodged
against community trade mark application No 847640
for the registration of the word SNIKE in relation to all
the products of class 25 covered by the application, does
not comply with the EC Regulations on Community
Trade Marks, No 40/94, and that the said decision be set
aside;

— declare that there is a risk of confusion between the
community trade mark application with No 847640 for
the word SNIKE in class 25 and Spanish trade mark
No 88222, consisting of the word NIKE with device,
which protects identical products that also fall under
class 25;

—
order the respondent and, if applicable, the intervening
party to pay the costs of these proceedings.

_Pleas in law and main arguments_

Applicants for the Com- Friedrich Grimm and Engelbert
munity trade mark: Rolli

Community trade mark Community trade mark applisought: cation No 847640 for word mark
SNIKE in relation to certain goods
in classes 12, 25 and 41 (Vehicles,
clothing, footwear, headgear, education, entertainment,...)

Proprietor of mark or The applicant, Muswellbrook Ltd.
sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in The national figurative mark No
opposition: 88222 for certain goods in
class 25 (Stockings, socks, shirts,
gloves, coats, footwear, sporting
footwear, ...)

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

Decision of the Board of Dismissal of the appeal
Appeal:

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8 (1) (b) of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/
941 ( [1] )

( [1] ) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the
Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1).

**Action brought on5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite Mateus**
**against the Commission of the European Communities**

**(Case T-10/04)**

(2004/C 59/58)

_(Language of the case: French)_

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 5 January 2004 by Carlos Leite
Mateus, residing in Zaventem (Belgium), represented by Sébastien Orlandi, Albert Coolen, Jean-Noël Louis and Étienne
Marchal, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.