Case T-485/08 P: Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission
Date: 2008-11-13
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action for annulment (EU), promotion, regulations for civil servants, seniority

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/31

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

Appeal brought on 13 November 2008 by Paul Lafili
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: José Dias
Magalhães & Filhos Lda (Arrifana, Portugal)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 28 July 2008 in case R 1864/2007-2, as far
as it dismissed the appeal of the applicant; and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIORDANO’
for goods in classes 18 and 25

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Mark or sign cited: Portuguese trade mark registration No 322 534
of the word mark ‘GIORDANO’ for goods in class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Partially upheld the opposi-
tion

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the
Opposition Division to the extent that it upheld the opposition
for certain goods in class 18 and dismissed the appeal for the
reminder

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in its finding that
there is a likelihood of confusion between the trade marks
concerned; Infringement of Article 42 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as well as Rule 15 of Commission Regulation
No 2868/95 (1) as the Board of Appeal wrongly rendered a deci-
sion pursuant to Article 8(1)(a) of Council Regulation No 40/94
while the other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal based its opposition only on Article 8(1)(b) of Council
Regulation 40/94.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

(Case T-485/08 P)

(2009/C 19/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Paul Lafili (Genk, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi,
lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims the Court should:

— annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the
European Union of 4 September 2008 in Case F-22/07 in
so far as it rejected the pleas in law alleging infringement of
Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations and Article 7 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of
the principle of legitimate expectations;

— consequently, allow the appellant's claims at first instance

and, therefore,

— the annulment of the decision to classify the appellant in
Grade AD 13, step 5, contained in a note of DG ADMIN
of 11 May 2006 and in the appellant's salary slip of
June 2006 and in his subsequent salary slips;

— leading to:

— the reinstatement, with effect from 1 May 2006, of
the applicant in grade AD 13, step 2, retaining the
multiplication factor 1.1172071;

— the full restructuring of the appellant's career with
retroactive effect from 1 May 2006 to the date of his
classification in grade and step as thus corrected
(including the valuation of his experience in his clas-
sification as thus corrected, his rights of advance-
ment to a higher step and his pension rights), which
includes the payment of default interest at the base
rate fixed by the European Central Bank for its main
refinancing operations, applicable during the period
concerned, increased by two points, on the total sum
of the difference between the remuneration for his
classification as set out in the classification decision
and the classification to which he should have been
entitled until the date on which the decision on his
corrected classification is taken;

— the order that the Commission is to pay all the costs;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs at first instance and

of the appeal.

C 19/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.1.2009

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this appeal, the appellant is seeking the annulment of the
judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 4 September
2008, given in Case F-22/07 Lafili v Commission, by which the
CST annulled the decision of the Head of Unit A6 ‘Career struc-
ture, evaluation and promotion’ in the ‘Personnel and Adminis-
tration’ General-Directorate of the Commission of the European
Communities of 11 May 2006, in so far as the judgment under
appeal rejects the appellant's pleas in law alleging infringement
of Articles 44 and 46 of the Staff Regulations of Officials of the
European Communities (‘the Staff Regulations’) and Article 7 of
Annex XIII to the Staff Regulations and an infringement of the
principle of legitimate expectations.

In support of his appeal, the appellant raised a single plea alle-
ging the infringement, at first instance, of Articles 44 and 46 of
the Staff Regulations, of Article 7 of Annex XIII to the Staff
Regulations, the infringement of the principles of interpretation
of Community law and of the obligation to state reasons, and a
distortion of the evidence.

Action brought on 17 November 2008 — Kureha v OHIM
— Sanofi-Aventis (KREMEZIN)

(Case T-487/08)

(2009/C 19/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kureha Corp. (Tokyo, Japan) (represented by: W. von
der Osten-Sacken and O. Sude, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sanofi-
Aventis SA (Gentilly, France)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office
Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 September 2008 in case
R 1631/2007-4; and

for Harmonisation

the

in

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘KREMEZIN’ for
goods in class 5 — application No 2 906 501

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

or

Mark
trade mark registration
No 529 937 of the word mark ‘KRENOSIN’ for goods in class 5

International

sign cited:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its
entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:
Infringement of Rule 19 and of Rule 20(1) of
Commission Regulation No 2868/95 (1), as well as misuse of
power, as the Board of Appeal wrongly considered that the
other party to the proceedings before it has sufficiently proven
the existence and validity of the earlier trade mark; Infringement
of Article 8(1)(b) in connection with Article 43(2) and (3) of
Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal erred in
its finding that there is a likelihood of confusion between the
trade marks concerned.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Galileo
International Technology v OHIM — GALILEO SISTEMAS
Y SERVICIOS (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)

(Case T-488/08)

(2009/C 19/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown,
Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, K. Gilbert and
M. Blair, Solicitors)

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

— Order the other party to the proceedings before the Board

of Appeal to pay the costs.

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Galileo
Sistemas y Servicios, SL (Tres Cantos, Spain)