CELEX: C2004/284/33
Language: en
Date: 2004-11-20 00:00:00
Title: Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 16 September 2004 in Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Community trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Extent of the obligation of examination — Conversion into a national trade-mark application — Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

20.11.2004   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 284/16
            
         
      JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
   
   of 16 September 2004
   in Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp. v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)
   
   (Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Extent of the obligation of examination - Conversion into a national trade-mark application - Article 58 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)
   (2004/C 284/33)
   Language of the case: English
   In Case T-342/02: Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp., established in Santa Monica, California (United States), represented by F. de Visscher, E. Cornu, E. De Gryse and D. Moreau, lawyers against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: S. Laitinen and D. Botis), the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM being Moser Grupo Media SL, established in Santa Eulalia del Rio (Spain) — action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of OHIM of 5 September 2002 (Case R 437/2001-3) declaring inadmissible the appeal brought against the decision of the Opposition Division relating to opposition proceedings between Moser Grupo Media SL and Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Lion Corp., — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, V. Tiili and M. Vilaras, Judges; J. Plingers, Administrator, for the Registrar, has given a judgment on 16 September 2004, in which it:
   
               1.
            
            
               Dismisses the action;
            
         
               2.
            
            
               Orders the applicant to pay the costs.
            
         
      (1)  OJ C 19 of 25.1.2003.