Case C-92/06 P: Appeal brought on  10 February 2006  by Soffass SpA against the judgment delivered on  23 November 2005  in Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
Date: 2006-05-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, polishing and scouring preparations, toiletries, trade-mark law

20.5.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 121/3

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Vicente Pascual García

Defendant: Confederación Hidrográfica del Duero

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(OHIM)

Other party to the proceedings: Sodipan SCA, intervener

Form of order sought

Questions referred

— Set aside the judgment under appeal.

1. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78 (1), preclude a national
law (specifically the first
paragraph of
the Single Transitional Provision of Law
14/2005 on clauses in collective agreements concerning the
attainment of normal retirement age), pursuant to which
compulsory retirement clauses contained in collective agree-
ments are lawful, where such clauses provide as sole
requirements that workers should have reached normal
retirement age and have satisfied the conditions set out in
the social security legislation of the Spanish State for entitle-
ment to draw a retirement pension under their contribution
regime, whereas, for future agreements to be able to provide
for termination of the contract on grounds of age,
the
undertaking must also link such termination to an employ-
ment policy?

2. Does the principle of equal treatment, which prohibits any
discrimination whatsoever on grounds of age, laid down in
Article 13 of the Treaty and Article 2 (1) of Directive
2000/78, require this Court, as a national court, not to
apply to this case the first paragraph of the Single Transi-
tional Provision of Law 14/2005?

— Grant the forms of order sought by the appellant in the
proceedings at first instance and annul the decision of the
OHIM First Board of Appeal of 16 July 2004 in Case
R0699/2003-1.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant claims that the judgment under appeal was given
contrary to Article 8(1)(b) and (2)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1), which provides that ‘… the trade mark applied for
shall not be registered if because of its identity with or simi-
larity to the earlier trade mark and the identity or similarity of
the goods or services covered by the trade marks there exists a
likelihood of confusion on the part of the public in the territory
in which the earlier trade mark is protected …’. The court has
in fact misapplied the concept of the likelihood of confusion,
as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Commu-
nities.

According to the appellant, the trade marks which are the
subject of the present dispute are not likely to be confused with
each other in view of the clear phonetic, visual, graphic and
conceptual differences.

(1) Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupa-
tion (OJ 2000 L 303, p. 16).

(1) OJ L 11, 14/01/1994, p. 1.

Appeal brought on 10 February 2006 by Soffass SpA
against the judgment delivered on 23 November 2005 in
Case T-396/04 Soffass SpA v Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market (OHIM)

Action brought on 23 February 2006 — Commission of
the European Communities v Kingdom of the Netherlands

(Case C-92/06 P)

(2006/C 121/05)

Language of the case: Italian

(Case C-108/06)

(2006/C 121/06)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: H. van Vliet and F. Simonetti, as Agents)

Appellant: Soffass SpA (represented by: V. Bilardo, C. Bacchini
and M. Mazzitelli, Avvocati)

Defendant: Kingdom of the Netherlands