CELEX: C2006/131/77
Language: en
Date: 2006-06-03 00:00:00
Title: Case T-20/06: Action brought on  11 January 2006  — Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos v OHIM

3.6.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 131/41
            
         Action brought on 11 January 2006 — Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos v OHIM
   (Case T-20/06)
   (2006/C 131/77)
   Language in which the application was lodged: Greek
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos (represented by: Konstantinos Taoulas, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences (Santa Monica, USA)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Annul and set aside the decision of 18 August 2005 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 1062/2000-4 and grant the applicant's application for registration of the word mark GRAMMY as a Community mark outright, as filed, or — in the alternative — in amended form as suggested in the present application to the Court.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dimitrios Grammatikopoulos.
   
      Community trade mark concerned: Word mark GRAMMY for goods in Classes 25 and 28 — Application No 19315.
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: National mark GRAMMY for goods in Classes 9, 35, 41 and 42.
   Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.
   
      Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld. Application for registration rejected.
   
      Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(5) and 43(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94. The applicant pleads that genuine commercial use of the mark cited in opposition was not proved, while he also contests the Board of Appeal's assessment that the mark cited in opposition has a reputation.