Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 20.5.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 121/3 |

---

Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

(Case C-92/06 P)

(2006/C 121/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener

Form of order sought

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Set aside the judgment under appeal. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case R0699/2003-1. |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | Order OHIM to pay the costs. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94[(1)](#ntr1-C_2006121EN.01000301-E0001), which provides that ‘… the trade mark applied for shall not be registered if because of its identity with or similarity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory in which the earlier trade mark is protected …’. The court has in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and conceptual differences.

---

[Top](#document1)