Case T-399/06: Action brought on 27 December 2006 — giropay v OHIM (GIROPAY)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), banking, electronic money, trade-mark law

C 42/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

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

Market in appeal case R 308/2005-4 in relation to Com-
munity trade mark application No 2 843 514 ‘GIROPAY’;

Other party to the proceedings before the OHIM Board of Appeal:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH.

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs of the proceedings.

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIROPAY’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 36-38 and 42 (Application No
2 843 514).

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unicredito Italiano SpA

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘1 Unicredit’,
registration application No 2.055.069 for goods and services in
Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’
(No 881.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and figurative mark
‘UNIZINS’
for services in Class 36 (capital
investment).

(No 2.016.954)

Decision of the Opposition Division: to allow the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: to dismiss the action.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of the theory of the extended protec-
tion of ‘serial marks’ as formulated by the Court of First Instance
in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria v OHIM [2006] ECR II-
0000 (Bainbridge).

Action brought on 27 December 2006 — giropay v OHIM
(GIROPAY)

(Case T-399/06)

(2007/C 42/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: The mark applied for does not present any descrip-
tive indications for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1). In addition, the mark applied for is particu-
larly capable of being perceived by the relevant public as a
distinctive sign.

(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 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Foot-
wear (HK) and Others v Council

(Case T-401/06)

(2007/C 42/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong),
Seasonable Footwear (Zhong Shan) Ltd (Banfu, China), Lung Pao
Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China), Risen Footwear
(HK) Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: L. Ruess-
mann, A. Willems, lawyers)

Applicant: Giropay GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (repre-
sented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 to the extent
it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicants;

— annul the decision of 26 October 2006 of the Fourth Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal

— order the Council to pay the costs.