Judgment — ECLI:EU:T:2014:269
Date: 2014-05-21
Language of the case: English
Court formation: Eighth Chamber
Subject matter: Trade marks;Intellectual, industrial and commercial property
Procedure: Action for annulment - unfounded
Origin: Italy

Action brought on 25 November 2011 - Eni v OHIM - EMI (IP) (ENI) (Case T-599/11) Language in which the application was lodged: English Parties Applicant: Eni SpA (Roma, Italy) (represented by: D. De Simone and G. Orsoni, lawyers) Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: EMI (IP) Ltd (London, United Kingdom) 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 8 September 2011 in case R 2439/2010-1; and Order the defendant to pay the costs of all instances of proceedings. Pleas in law and main arguments Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant Community trade mark concerned: The word mark "ENI", for goods and services in classes 1-4, 6-7, 9, 11, 14, 16-19, 22, 25 and 35 to 45 - Community trade mark application No 6488076 Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 4197315 of the word mark "EMI", for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 6167357 of the figurative mark "EMI", for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposition Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal Pleas in law: The applicant challenges the mentioned decision of the First Board of Appeal on the following three grounds: (i) erroneous and non-motivated finding of similarity of goods and services, based on the misunderstanding and misapplication of previous case-law on the point; (ii) erroneous interpretation and application of the Praktiker case, denoting a misunderstanding of its anti-monopolistic inspiring principles and in particular of the ratio that inspired the introduction of registrability of retail services; and (iii) erroneous finding of similarity of signs, and erroneous finding of likelihood of confusion. ____________