Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

|  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 14.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 115/10 |

---

Appeal brought on 2 March 2005 (faxed on 28 February 2005) by El Corte Inglés against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-8/03 between El Corte Inglés SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-104/05 P)

(2005/C 115/20)

Language of the case: Italian

On 2 March 2005 El Corte Inglés SA, represented by J. L. Rivas Zurdo, lawyer, brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities an appeal against the judgment delivered on 13 December 2004 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-8/03 El Corte Inglés SA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (trade marks and designs) (OHIM)

The appellant claims that the Court should:

|  |  |
| --- | --- |
| 1. | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 13 December 2004 notified to the appellant on 20 December 2004 in Case T-8/03 dismissing the action brought by the appellant and ordering it to pay the costs; |

|  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | uphold the action brought before the Court of First Instance seeking to establish:   |  |  | | --- | --- | | (a) | annulment of the decision of 3 October 2002 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM (Joined Cases 700/2000-4 and 746/2000-4) in so far as it allows the appellant's appeal in part, dismisses the respondent's appeal and allows Community mark 203570 to be granted in respect of goods in Classes 18 and 24; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (b) | refusal of registration of Community trade mark 203570 ‘Emilio Pucci’ in respect of all the goods in Class 18: ‘Leather and imitations of leather, and goods made of these materials and not included in other classes; animal skins, hides; trunks and travelling bags; umbrellas, parasols and walking sticks; whips, harness and saddlery’ and of Class 24: ‘Textiles and textile goods, not included in other classes; bed and table covers’; the only classes in respect of which registration was allowed by OHIM; |  |  |  | | --- | --- | | (c) | Liability on the part of the respondent and the intervener to pay the costs in regard both to the present proceedings and to the proceedings at first instance. | |

Pleas and main arguments

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 given the similarity in this case between the products of the earlier marks and the products designated in the application;

The judgment under appeal refers to general and abstract criteria on the absence of similarity between the products, whereas the present case constitutes an exception;

The complementarity between the products in Classes 18 and 25 affirmed by the intervener itself in its pleading was not taken into consideration by the judgment, whereas that complementarity confirms the judicial criterion according to which the classes in the nomenclature are merely administrative criteria.

The criterion of the consuming public is a matter for consideration at the time when the application is dealt with. To that end the ‘relevant factors’ relied on in the judgment under appeal which generally characterise similarity between products are not absolute requirements in dealing with the scope of protection of two opposing marks.

The judgment appealed against centres the comparison on deductive and abstract criteria of a mechanistic nature without assessing the common denominator of the concept of fashion in its manifold aspects.

The consuming public (average consumer) is the first and last reference point to be taken into consideration in conflicts of marks for the purposes of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Since similarity of signs and products gives rise to a likelihood of confusion the prohibition under Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 should be applied.

The evidence adduced by the applicant attests the fact that the mark ‘Emidio Tucci’ is well known, thus rendering Article 8(5) of Regulation No 40/94 applicable.

The judgment of the Court of First Instance does not adequately assess the reputation of the mark from 1994 or prior to 1996.

In the final analysis, a part of the Emidio Tucci clientele could be misled by the mark ‘Emilio Pucci’, bringing about an unwarranted advantage in favour of the latter mark to the detriment of the former mark and its exclusive sphere of distinctiveness.

---

[Top](#document1)