CELEX: C2006/190/11
Language: en
Date: 2006-08-12 00:00:00
Title: Case C-196/06 P: Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)

12.8.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 190/7
            
         Appeal brought on 26 April 2006 by Alecansan SL against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) delivered on 7 February 2006 in Case T-202/03: Alecansan SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)(OHIM)
   (Case C-196/06 P)
   (2006/C 190/11)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Appellant: Alecansan SL (represented by: P. Merino Baylos and A. Velázquez Ibáñez, abogados)
   
      Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, CompUSA Management Co.
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the judgment of 7 February 2006 (Case T-2002/03) of the First Chamber of the Court of First Instance dismissing the action for annulment filed against the Resolution dated 24 March 2003 of the First Appeal Chamber of the Office for Harmonisation of the Internal Market (OHIM) in case R-711/2002-1, dismissing the opposition filed by Alecansan SL against community trade mark application No 849.497 ‘COMPUSA’.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in its interpretation of article 8.1.b) of Regulations No 40/94 (1) when it found that there was no likelihood of confusion between the two marks on the grounds that, despite the high degree of similarity from a phonetic and a visual point of view, the goods and services of the trade mark applied for are not similar to the services covered by the appellant's mark. The appellant maintains that the Court of First Instance failed to take account of several important factors when determining the existence of the likelihood of confusion.
   
      (1)  OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p.1