CELEX: C2006/096/39
Language: en
Date: 2006-04-22 00:00:00
Title: Case T -57/06: Action brought on  17 February 2006  — Marly v OHIM

22.4.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 96/22
            
         Action brought on 17 February 2006 — Marly v OHIM
   (Case T -57/06)
   (2006/C 96/39)
   Language in which the application was lodged: French
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Marly SA (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: B. Mouffe, 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: Erdal Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Hallein, Austria)
   Form of order sought
   The applicant claims that the Court should:
   
               —
            
            
               annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in so far as it upholds the opposition by the proprietor of the word mark ‘TOFIX’;
            
         
               —
            
            
               order the defendant to pay the costs, including expenses necessarily incurred during proceedings before the Board of Appeal, incurred by the party initiating the proceedings and as calculated in the decision under appeal.
            
         Pleas in law and main arguments
   Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant
   
      Community trade mark concerned: the figurative mark ‘TOPIX’ for goods in Class 3 (application No 2 326 072)
   Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Erdal Gesellschaft m.b.H.
   
      Mark or sign cited in opposition: the international word mark ‘TOPIX’ for goods in Classes 3 and 4
   
      Decision of the Opposition Division: opposition upheld in respect of all the disputed goods
   Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed
   
      Pleas in law: infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in that there is a visual and conceptual difference between the conflicting trade marks and a very great difference between the goods to which the two trade marks relate.