CELEX: C2006/074/44
Language: en
Date: 2006-03-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-439/05: Action brought on  13 December 2005  — Royal Bank of Scotland/OHIM

25.3.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 74/22
            
         Action brought on 13 December 2005 — Royal Bank of Scotland/OHIM
   (Case T-439/05)
   (2006/C 74/44)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc (Edinburgh, United Kingdom) [represented by: J. Hull, Solicitor]
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lombard Risk Systems Limited and Lombard Risk Consultants limited (London, United Kingdom)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 21 July 2005 (Case R 370/2004-4) relating to Opposition Proceedings No. B 370959, notification of which was dated 13 October 2005; and
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the OHIM to pay the costs.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘LOMBARD DIRECT’ for services in classes 35, 36 and 42 — application No 1 523 992
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Lombard Risk Systems Limited and Lombard Risk Consultants Limited
   
      Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘LOMBARD RISK’ and ‘LOMBARD GROUP OF COMPANIES’ for goods and services in classes 9, 36 and 41
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for part of the contested services
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal applied an incorrect legal test when considering whether there was a likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks in as much as it found it conceivable that confusion would occur and that the possibility of confusion could not be excluded. According to the applicant the Board thereby reversed the burden of proof, requiring the applicant to prove that there was no likelihood of confusion. Furthermore, the Board of Appeal failed to give proper reasons for its decision contrary to Article 73 of the Regulation.