Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 5.3.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 57/30 |

---

Action brought on 10 December 2004 by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-481/04)

(2005/C 57/51)

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 10 December 2004 by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., established in New York (USA), represented by M. Esteve Sanz, lawyer.

J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda., established in Porto (Portugal), 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 27 September 2004 rendered in case R 328/2003-1; |

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| — | order the defendant and if the case might be, the intervener, to pay the costs of proceedings and the costs of appeal incurred within the OHIM. |

Pleas in law and main arguments

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for Community trade mark: | Advance Magazine Publishers, Inc. |
| Community trade mark concerned: | The word mark ‘VOGUE’ for goods and services in classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25 and 41 (Clothing,…) — application No 183 756 |
| Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | J. Capela & Irmãos, Lda |
| Trade mark or sign cited in opposition: | The national word mark ‘VOGUE PORTUGAL’ for goods in class 25 (footwear) and the business name ‘VOGUE - SAPATARIA’ |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Rejection of the Community trade mark for the contested goods, namely clothing |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Dismissal of the appeal |
| Pleas in law: | Violation of the procedural rules of Articles 61(1), 62(1) and 74(1) of Council Regulation No 40/94; Violation of Articles 73 and 62 (2) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as well as Rule 50(2)(h) of Commission Regulation No 2868/95; Violation of Article 43(2) and 43(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation 2868/95; Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94. |

---

[Top](#document1)