Case C-214/05 P: Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2005-07-23
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, footwear industry, trade-mark law

23.7.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/31

Appeal brought on 17 May 2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA
against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by the
Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio
Rossi SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-214/05 P)

(2005/C 182/54)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An appeal against the judgment delivered on 1 March 2005 by
the Second Chamber of the Court of First Instance of the Euro-
pean Communities in Case T-169/03 between Sergio Rossi
SpA and the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
2005 by Sergio Rossi SpA, represented by A. Ruo of the
Alicante Bar (Spain).

The appellant claims that the Court should:

1. set aside in full the judgment under appeal for infringement
of Articles 8 and 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1) and Articles 44(1) and 81 of the Rules of Proce-
dure of the Court of First Instance;

2.

3.

in the alternative, set aside in part the judgment under
appeal only as regards the registration of the trade mark
SISSI ROSSI in respect of ‘leather and imitations of leather’;

in the further alternative, uphold the right
to produce
evidence, set aside in full the judgment under appeal and
refer the present dispute back to the Court of First Instance
for it to examine the evidence held to be inadmissible or, in
the alternative and, pursuant to the right to be heard under
Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94, refer the
present dispute to the Board of Appeal of OHIM for it to set
a time-limit within which the parties can present
their
comments;

4. order the respondent as the unsuccessful party to pay the
costs pursuant to Article 69(2) of the Rules of Procedure of
the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the judgment under appeal is flawed
in that it infringes the following rules:

1. Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance in that the judgment under appeal does not state
reasons in respect of the primary claim made in the action.

in the opinion of the appellant should have been accepted,
was held to be inadmissible; in the alternative, the appellant
submits that Article 73 of Council Regulation (EC) No
40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark
was infringed in that, in the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal of OHIM, the appellant was not given the opportu-
nity to present its comments on whether or not the goods
in question are similar.

3. Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20
December 1993 on the Community trade mark in that the
marks Miss Rossi and Sissi Rossi should be regarded as
incompatible. Given the similarity of both the goods and
the marks the question of whether there is a likelihood of
confusion between those marks within the meaning of that
article should be reconsidered.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 May 2005 by the Commission of
the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-218/05)

(2005/C 182/55)

(Language of the case: Italian)

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the
Court of Justice of the European Communities on 17 May
2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, repre-
sented by K. Simonsson and C. Loggi, acting as Agents, with an
address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

(1) declare that, by failing to adopt the laws, regulations and
administrative provisions necessary to comply with Direc-
tive 2002/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 27 June 2002 establishing a Community vessel
traffic monitoring and information system and repealing
Council Directive 93/75/EEC (1) or, in any event, by failing
to communicate to the Commission tht it had done so, the
Italan Republic has failed to fulfil
its oblgations under
Article 29 of that directive.

2. Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance in that evidence produced by the appellant, which

(2) order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.