CELEX: 62005TA0009
Language: en
Date: 2008-01-15 00:00:00
Title: Case T-9/05: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008 — Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE — Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

23.2.2008   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 51/41
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 15 January 2008 — Hoya v OHIM — Indo (AMPLITUDE)
   (Case T-9/05) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark AMPLITUDE - Earlier national figurative mark AMPLY - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2008/C 51/75)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: A. Nordemann, C.-R. Haarmann, F. Schwab and M. Nentwig, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and G. Schneider, acting as Agents)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the Court of First Instance: Indo Internacional SA (Hospitalet de Llobregat, Spain) (represented by: M. Currel Aguilà, lawyer)
   Re:
   ACTION brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 November 2004 (Case R 433/2004-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Indo Internacional SA and Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders Hoya Kabushiki Kaisha to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2005.