Case C-210/08 P: Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Sebirán, SL against the judgment delivered on 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 Sebirán, SL v OHIM and El Coto de Rioja, SA
Date: 2008-05-21
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), alcoholic beverage, appeal, non-alcoholic beverage, trade-mark law

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/15

Appeal brought on 21 May 2008 by Sebirán, SL against the
judgment delivered on 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04
Sebirán, SL v OHIM and El Coto de Rioja, SA

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Commission of the
European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-210/08 P)

(2008/C 183/29)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Appellant: Sebirán, SL (represented by: J. Calderón Chavero and
T. Villate Consonni)

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and El Coto de Rioja,
SA

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the judgment of the Court of First Instance
(Fourth Chamber) of 12 March 2008 in Case T-332/04 on
the ground that the trade marks EL COTO/COTO DE IMAZ,
on the one hand, and COTO D'ARCIS, on the other, are
clearly compatible;

— Order for payment of costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

since upon opposition of

the Court of First Instance:
Challenge to the assessment of
Sebirán considers that
the Community trade mark COTO
D'ARCIS does not infringe the prohibition of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94 (1)
the
proprietor of an earlier mark,
in this case the Community
marks EL COTO and COTO DE IMAZ, the refusal to register
the most recent is not appropriate because it is sufficiently
dissimilar, for the purposes of that prohibition, to the earlier
marks, notwithstanding that the goods or services covered by
both marks are identical or similar, considering the whole and
not the separate components, when in addition there is no
possibility of a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public
of the whole territory of the European Union. The likelihood of
confusion does not include the risk of association with the
earlier mark.

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

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

(Case C-219/08)

(2008/C 183/30)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: E. Traversa and J.-P. Keppenne, Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

— declare that, by requiring, in the event that workers who are
third countries are posted by Community

nationals of
undertakings in the framework of a provision of services:

(a) authorisation prior to the exercise of

the economic

activity;

(b) that the residence permit issued in the State in which
the employer is established must be valid three months
beyond the end of the service provided;

(c) that a worker must have been in the service of the same
sixth

employer providing the services
months;

for at

least

the Kingdom of Belgium has failed to fulfil its obligations
under Article 49 EC.

— order the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

that

in essence,

The Commission claims,
the requirements
imposed by the defendant in the event that workers who are
nationals of third countries are posted by providers of services
established in a Member State other than Belgium restrict the
free provision of services and at the same time discriminate
against those providers in relation to their competitors estab-
lished in Belgium.

By its first complaint, the Commission claims that the system of
authorisation prior to the exercise of an economic activity repre-
sents a disproportionate obstacle to the free provision of
services. That obstacle cannot moreover be justified by any
reason of general interest, or by reference to the rules of the
Schengen acquis.

By its second complaint, the applicant calls in question the
disproportionate nature of the requirement that the residence
permit issued in the Member State in which the employer is
established must be valid three months beyond the end of the
service provided.