Official Journal of the European Union

JUDGMENT OF 6. 3. 2025 – CASE C-41/24 WALTHAM ABBEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

8.3.2008

(Case T-490/07)

(2008/C 64/75)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Notartel SpA — (Notaries' information technology company) (Rome, Italy) (represented by: M. Bosshard and M. Balestriero, avvocati)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH (Berlin, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

—Primarily, annul, in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition;

—Alternatively, annul, in part, the decision of OHIM's Fourth Board of Appeal of 22 October 2007 in Case R 1267/2006-4, in so far as it upheld the opposition in respect of the mark sought for Class 38;

—In any event, reject any possible future contrary application or claim, by way of confirming the decision in so far as it is not impugned in this case;

—Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘R.U.N.’ (Community trade mark application No 1,069,863 for services in Classes 35, 38 and 42, as regards these proceedings).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SAT.1 SatellitenFernsehen GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word mark ‘ran’, for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 38, 41 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal allowed in part, in respect of some services in Classes 38 and 42.

Pleas in law: The contested decision is vitiated by a logical contradiction which consists in enunciating a series of correct legal principles stated to be mandatory in the assessment of the similarity between signs and goods/services for the purposes of establishing the ground of refusal under the first part of Article 73 of the Community trade mark regulation, whilst however applying different criteria in evaluating the actual case in point. Such logical contradiction therefore gives rise either to an error of law, by the application of legal principles different to those (correct) ones stated in the legal basis of the decision, or to inconsistency and insufficiency in the reasoning.