Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2007:341
Date: 2007-11-15
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Fifth Chamber
Based on: Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957)
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Concepts: Figurative marks applied for
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded

Notice for the OJ SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1 Action brought on 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., against the office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-38/04) Language of the case: to be determined pursuant to article 131(2) of the Rules of Procedure - language in which the case was submitted: English An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4 February 2004 by Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd., Hsin-Chu, Taiwan, represented by Dr H. Eichmann, Mr G. Barth, Dr U. Blumenröder, Ms C. Niklas-Falter, Dr M. Kinkeldey, Dr K. Brandt, Ms A. Franke, Ms U. Stephani, Dr B. Allekotte, Dr E.Pfrang, Ms K. Lochner, Ms B. Ertle, Ms Christine Neuhierl and Ms Sabine Prückner, lawyers. Sun Microsystems, Inc., 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) in Case R 642/2000-4 of 7 October 2003; order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defendant. Pleas in law and main arguments: Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd. The Community trade mark sought: The figurative mark "SUNPLUS" for certain goods in class 9 (Chips; semi-conductors; micro-processing chips; program cards;...) (trade mark application No 214346) Proprietor of mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Sun Microsystems Inc. Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national verbal and figurative marks "SUN" for goods in class 9 (computers; magnetic and electronic data carriers;...) Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the trade mark application Decision of the Board of Appeal1: Dismissal of the appeal brought by the applicant Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) (b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/942 in that there is no likelihood of confusion. ____________ 1 - Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case R 642/2000-4 of 7 October 2003 2 - Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 0 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 11, p. 1)