CELEX: C2005/330/57
Language: en
Date: 2005-12-24 00:00:00
Title: Case T-366/05: Action brought on  26 September 2005  — Anheuser-Busch/OHIM

24.12.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 330/23
            
         Action brought on 26 September 2005 — Anheuser-Busch/OHIM
   (Case T-366/05)
   (2005/C 330/57)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant(s): Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (St. Louis, USA) [represented by: V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, A. Pohlmann, G. Burkhart, lawyers]
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      Other party/parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějovice, Czech Republic)
   Form of order sought
   
               —
            
            
               Partially annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 July 2005 (Case R 514/2004-2), namely insofar as the application was rejected for goods in class 33, and
            
         
               —
            
            
               Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   
      Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ for goods in classes 32 and 33 — application No 1 603 489
   
      Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik
   
      Mark or sign cited: The international figurative marks and word mark ‘BUDWEISER’ and ‘BUDWEISER BUDVAR’ for goods in classes 31 and 32
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the contested goods
   
      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 there is no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks. The goods are sufficiently dissimilar to exclude any confusion on the part of the consumer.