CELEX: C2003/184/99
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-02 00:00:00
Title: Case T-185/03: Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

2.8.2003              EN                           Official Journal of the European Union                                           C 184/45
Mark or sign cited in oppo-      Figurative mark ‘GESINMAR’                Pleas in law and main arguments
sition:                          (mark          with         priority
                                                                           Applicant for Community          The Applicant
                                 no 1975912, for goods in
                                                                           trade mark:
                                 Class 36)
                                                                           Community       trade   mark     The trade name ‘ENZO FUSCO’
Decision of the Opposition       Upholding of the opposition for           sought:                          — Application for registration
Division:                        all services in Class 36                                                   No 726735, requested for pro-
                                                                                                            ducts in Classes 3, 9, 18, 24
                                                                                                            and 25 (products which are tra-
                                                                                                            ditionally the subject of trade
                                                                                                            mark registration by so-called
Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal                                                    creators of taste and fashion)
Appeal:
                                                                           Proprietor of mark or sign       Antonio Fusco International
                                                                           cited in the opposition pro-     S.A., Luxembourg
Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)         ceedings:
                                 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
                                 (likelihood of confusion)
                                                                           Mark or sign cited in op-        Community mark ‘ANTONIO
                                                                           position:                        FUSCO’               (Registration
                                                                                                            No 654059) for products sub-
                                                                                                            stantially identical to those
                                                                                                            claimed by the Applicant
Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco
against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
          Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)                          Decision of the Opposition       Opposition upheld and applica-
                                                                           Division:                        tion for registration dismissed
                         (Case T-185/03)
                         (2003/C 184/99)                                   Decision of the Board of         Dismissal of the appeal.
                                                                           Appeal:
                   (Language of the case: Italian)
                                                                           Pleas in law:                    Misapplication of Article 8(1)(b)
An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal                                              of Regulation (EC) No 40/94
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before                                                  (Risk of confusion).
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on
27 May 2003 by Vincenzo Fusco, represented by B. Saguatti,
lawyers.
The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
was Antonio Fusco International S.A.                                       Action brought on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet
                                                                                       against Council of the European Union
The applicant claims:
                                                                                                    (Case T-188/03)
—     as a principal claim, that the Court should annul the                                        (2003/C 184/100)
      contested decisions of the Board of Appeal holding that
      the marks Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco were liable to                                   (Language of the case: French)
      be confused with each other;
—     in the alternative, should the Court hold that the marks             An action against the Council of the European Union was
      Antonio Fusco and Enzo Fusco are liable to confusion,                brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
      that the Court should specify the precise territorial scope          Communities on 27 May 2003 by Joëlle Hivonnet, domiciled
      of the decision;                                                     in New York (United States), represented by Georges Vander-
—     as a principal claim, a declaration that, although the               sanden and Laure Levi, lawyers.
      opposition is based on an earlier Community trade                    The applicant claims that the Court should:
      mark, the transformation procedure is not precluded save
      by reference to the territory in respect of which the                —     annul the decision of the appointing authority of 23 July
      existence of a risk of confusion may be recognised;                        2002 rejecting the applicant's request for the grant of an
                                                                                 education allowance for her daughter Eponine for the
—     that the opponent should be ordered to pay the costs, or,                  school years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, and only
      in the alternative, given the delicacy and complexity of                   granting an education allowance for the school year
      the questions under consideration, that a composition of                   2001-2002 on an exceptional basis on the ground of
      costs should be established.                                               educational continuity;