Case T-488/08: Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS (GSS GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS)
Date: 2008-11-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), product designation, trade-mark law

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)

24.1.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/33

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 28 August 2008 in case R 403/2006-4; and

— Order the defendant and the other party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal to bear their own costs and
those incurred by the applicant.

Action brought on 14 November 2008 — Sun World
International v OHIM — Kölla Hamburg Overseas Import
(SUPERIOR SEEDLESS)

(Case T-493/08)

(2009/C 19/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

Parties

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The other party to the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Applicant: Sun World International LLC (Bakersfield, United
States) (represented by: M. Holah, Solicitor)

Community
trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GSS
GALILEO SISTEMAS Y SERVICIOS’, for goods and services in
classes 9 and 38.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kölla
Hamburg Overseas
Import GmbH & Co. KG (Hamburg,
Germany)

sign cited: Community

trade mark application
Mark
or
No 170 167 of
for goods and
the word mark ‘GALILEO’
services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark
registration No 2 157 501 of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42;
Community trade mark registration No 516 799 of the figura-
tive mark ‘powered by Galileo’
for goods and services in
classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark
the figurative mark ‘GALILEO
registration No 330 084 of
INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41
and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2 159 069 of
the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and
services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Earlier signs
protected in various Member States namely, a non-registered
trade mark, a trade name, and a sign, all used in the course of
trade for the specified goods and services.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 3 September 2008 in case R 1378/2007-1;
and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the application for a
Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘SUPERIOR SEEDLESS’
for goods in class 31 — Community trade mark registration
No 610 980

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition against
the contested goods and services

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the
Opposition Division

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94 as: (i) the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a
global assessment of the Community trade mark concerned in
relation to the word only trade marks for ‘GALILEO’; (ii) the
Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the Community trade
mark concerned in relation to the earlier composite trade marks
containing the word ‘GALILEO’; and (iii) the Board of Appeal
erred in its assessment of the similarity of the goods; Infringe-
ment of Article 63(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board
of Appeal failed to remit the case back to the Opposition Divi-
sion for a finding under Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of Council Regu-
lation 40/94.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial invalidity of the Com-
munity trade mark concerned

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(3) and 51(2) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal: (i) wrongly identi-
fied the relevant public; (ii) wrongly refused to allow a with-
drawal of the Community trade mark registration in respect of
some of the goods in the specification; (iii) made an unlawful
assumption based on the lack of a United Kingdom or Irish
registration; and (iv) incorrectly assessed the evidence filed.