Case C-245/06 P: Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA (Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion — Application for a figurative mark including the word element SELEZIONE ORO Barilla — Opposition by the holder of the national and international trade mark ORO and the national trade mark ORO SAIWA — Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, General Court (EU), appeal, food industry, pasta, trade-mark law

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/25

Re:

Re:

Appeal brought against the Order of the Court of First Instance
(First Chamber) of 22 March 2006 in Case T-4/05 Strack v
Commission by which the Court dismissed as inadmissible an
action seeking, first, annulment of OLAF's decision to close an
investigation initiated after allegations of fraud made by the
appellant, and of
the investigation, and,
second, re-initiation of that investigation and the drawing up of
a new final report — Meaning of ‘act adversely affecting an offi-
cial’
the European
Communities — Obligation to refer the case to the Civil Service
Staff Tribunal

in the Staff Regulations of Officials of

the final report of

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Mr Strack is ordered to pay the costs.

(1) OJ C 165, 15.7.2006.

Appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance (First
Chamber) of 5 April 2006 in Case T-344/03 Saiwa SpA v
Instance dismissed an
OHIM, by which the Court of First
action, brought by the applicant for the national and interna-
tional word mark ‘ORO’
and the national word mark
‘ORO SAIWA’ for goods in Class 30, for annulment of Decision
R 480/2002-4 of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of 18 July 2003
dismissing the appeal brought against the decision of the Oppo-
sition Division which rejected the opposition filed against the
application to register a figurative mark including the word
elements ‘SELEZIONE ORO’ and ‘Barilla’ for goods in Class 30
— Similarity of marks — Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
(OJ 1993 L 11, p. 1)

Operative part of the order

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. Saiwa SpA is ordered to pay the costs.

3. Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA shall bear its own costs.

Order of the Court of 9 March 2007 — Saiwa SpA v
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade
Marks and Designs) and Barilla G. and R. Fratelli SpA

(1) OJ C 178, 29.7.2006.

(Case C-245/06 P) (1)

(Appeal — Community trade mark — Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 — Likelihood of confusion —
Application for a figurative mark including the word element
‘SELEZIONE ORO Barilla’ — Opposition by the holder of
the national and international trade mark ORO and the
national trade mark ORO SAIWA — Appeal in part mani-
festly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded)

(2007/C 96/44)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Saiwa SpA (represented by: G. Sena, P. Tarchini,
J.-P. Karsenty, M. Karsenty-Ricard, avocats)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market
(represented by:
(Trade Marks and Designs)
O. Montalto and L. Rampini, Agents), Barilla G. and R Fratelli
by
SpA,
A. Vanzetti, avvocato)

formerly Barilla Alimentare

SpA (represented

Order of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 17 April 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal du
Travail, Verviers (Belgium)) — Mamate El Youssfi v Office
National des Pensions (ONP)

(Case C-276/06) (1)

(Article 104(3), first subparagraph, of the Rules of Procedure
— Euro-Mediterranean Agreement EC-Morocco — Article 65
— Principle of non-discrimination in matters of social security
— Statutory Guaranteed Income for Elderly Persons)

(2007/C 96/45)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Tribunal du Travail, Verviers