# C_2009244EN.01001001.xml

| 10.10.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.10.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/10

---

Action brought on 28 July 2009 — IG Communications v OHIM — Citicorp and Citibank (CITIGATE)

(Case T-301/09)

2009/C 244/15

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: IG Communications Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Beard, Solicitor and M. Edenborough, Barrister)

Applicants:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Citicorp and Citibank, N.A. (New York, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2009 in case R 821/2005-1 in its entirety, or alternatively in part; and |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 30 April 2009 in case R 821/2005-1 in its entirety, or alternatively in part; and

| — | Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance. |
| --- | --- |

—

Award the applicant the costs incurred in connection with this appeal before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CITIGATE’, for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35 and 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited: German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITI’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark application of the figurative mark ‘citi’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICORP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGROUP’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBOND’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 38; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIEQUITY’ for goods and services in classes 16, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGARANT’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 36 and 42; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITICARD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIGOLD’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36; German trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; United Kingdom trade mark registration of the word mark ‘CITIBANK’ for services in class 36; Community trade mark registration of the word mark ‘THE CITI NEVER SLEEPS’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 36.

Mark or sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the contested decision and rejected the Community trade mark applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks concerned; Infringement of Article 8(5) Council Regulation 207/2009 as the Board of Appeal wrongly held that there was a family of earlier trade marks and, as a consequence, that there was a conflict between the trade marks concerned.

Pleas in law:

---