CELEX: C2005/115/37
Language: en
Date: 2005-05-14 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 March 2005 in Case T-32/03 Leder & Schuh AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ — Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ — Relative ground for refusal — Partial refusal to register — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

14.5.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 115/20
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 8 March 2005
   in Case T-32/03 Leder & Schuh AG v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Earlier national word mark ‘Schuhpark’ - Application for Community word mark ‘JELLO SCHUHPARK’ - Relative ground for refusal - Partial refusal to register - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2005/C 115/37)
   Language of the case: German
   In Case T-32/03: Leder & Schuh AG, established in Graz (Austria), represented by W. Kellentur and A. Schlaffge, lawyers, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: G. Schneider and B. Müller), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance, being Schuhpark Fascies GmbH, established in Warendorf (Germany), represented by A. Peter, lawyer — action against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 November 2002, in the corrected version of 9 December 2002 (Case R 494/1999-3), relating to opposition proceedings between Schuhpark Fascies GmbH and Leder & Schuh AG — the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber), composed of J. Pirrung, President, N.J. Forwood and S. Papasavvas, Judges; B. Pastor, Deputy Registrar, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 March 2005, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the application;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to bear the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 101 of 26.4.2003.