CELEX: C2006/048/52
Language: en
Date: 2006-02-25 00:00:00
Title: Case T-29/04: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of  8 December 2005  — Castellblanch v OHIM (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element  CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH  — Earlier national word mark CRISTAL — Genuine use of the earlier mark — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

25.2.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 48/28
            
         Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 December 2005 — Castellblanch v OHIM
   (Case T-29/04) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for a figurative Community trade mark containing the word element ‘CRISTAL CASTELLBLANCH’ - Earlier national word mark CRISTAL - Genuine use of the earlier mark - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b), Article 15(2)(a) and Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2006/C 48/52)
   Language of the case: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Castellblanch, SA (Sant Sadurni d'Anoia, Spain) (represented by: F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, É. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: I. de Medrano Caballero, Agent)
   
      Other party or parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the Court of First Instance: Champagne Louis Roederer SA (Reims, France) (represented by: P. Cousin, lawyer)
   Action
   brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 November 2003 (Case R 37/2000-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Castellblanch, SA and Champagne Louis Roederer SA
   Operative part of the judgment
   The Court:
   
               1)
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2)
            
            
               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 71 of 20. 03. 2004.