Case C-245/05: Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court of 20 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Metro International GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf
Date: 2007-11-20
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Egypt, India, Pakistan, anti-dumping duty, import, interpretation of the law, textile product

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/31

Appeal brought on 22 January 2008 by Sunplus
Technology Co. Ltd against the judgment of the Court of
First Instance (Fifth Chamber) delivered on 15 November
2007 in Case T-38/04: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd v Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM)

(Case C-21/08 P)

(2008/C 64/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Sunplus Technology Co. Ltd (represented by: H. Eich-
mann, G. Barth, U. Blumenröder, C. Niklas-Falter, M. Kinkeldey,
K. Brandt, A. Franke, U. Stephani, B. Allekotte, K. Lochner,
B. Ertle, C. Neuhierl, S. Prückner, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Sun Microsystems,
Inc.

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court should:

— annul the judgment under appeal;

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to bear costs of the proceeding.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court of First Instance erred in
its application and interpretation of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
No 40/94 (1) by comparing single parts of the two trademarks
and not assessing their overall impression on the consumer.

According to the appellant the Court of First Instance distorted
facts and evidence when it stated that the device part of the
trademark applied for contains a stylized sun rather than a ‘star’
symbol and when it omitted to take the letter ‘S’ into account
when comparing the overall impression of the trademarks.

The appellant also maintains that the reasoning of the Court of
First Instance is contradictory in that, at paragraph 39 of the
judgment, it states that the additional components create differ-
ences between the trademarks but
those
components when comparing the trademarks phonetically.

fails to consider

Finally the appellant submits that the Court of First Instance
erred in not taking into account the category of goods and
services in question and the circumstances in which they are
marketed when assessing the likelihood of confusion.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) of 20 December 1993 on the Community

trade mark (JO L 11, p. 1).

Order of the President of the Fourth Chamber of the Court
of 20 November 2007 (reference for a preliminary ruling
from the Finanzgericht Düsseldorf — Germany) — Metro
International GmbH v Hauptzollamt Düsseldorf

(Case C-245/05) (1)

(2008/C 64/45)

Language of the case: German

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 205, 20.8.2005.

Order of the President of the Court of 21 November 2007
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State
— Netherlands) — Minister voor Vreemdelingenzaken en
Integratie v I. Günes

(Case C-296/05) (1)

(2008/C 64/46)

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of
removed from the register.

the Court has ordered that

the case be

(1) OJ C 296, 26.11.2005.