24.7.2004   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/16

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by GfK Aktiengesellschaft against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-135/04)

(2004/C 190/27)

Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the application was submitted: German

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8 April 2004 by GfK Aktiengesellschaft, Nuremberg (Germany), represented by U. Brückmann and R. Lange, lawyers.

BUS-Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs-GmbH, Munich (Germany) was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 4 February 2004 (Case R 327/2003-1);

—

reject the opposition of the intervener of 6 October 2000 founded on the German word and figurative mark ‘BUS Betreuungsverbund für Unternehmer und Selbständige e.V.’ (Registration No: DE 1 127 415);

—

order the Office to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant for Community trade mark:

The applicant

Community trade mark sought:

The word mark ‘Online Bus’ for services in Class 35 (including drawing up statistics in the field of economics, marketing, market research and market analysis, business consultancy and organisation consultancy)

Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

BUS-Betreuungs- und Unternehmensberatungs-GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition.

German figurative mark ‘BUS’ for services in Classes 35, 40, 41 and 42 (including business consultancy, in particular organisation consultancy and economic consultancy)

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Pleas in law:

—

The intervener has failed to furnish proof of the use of the mark on which the opposition is founded, and the opposition should be rejected under the second sentence of Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.

—

As there is no similarity between the opposing marks, there is no likelihood of confusion within the meaning of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94.
  翻译：