CELEX: 62008TN0483
Language: en
Date: 2008-11-11 00:00:00
Title: Case T-483/08: Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)

24.1.2009   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 19/30
            
         Action brought on 11 November 2008 — Giordano Enterprises v OHIM — José Dias Magalhães & Filhos (GIORDANO)
   (Case T-483/08)
   (2009/C 19/58)
   Language in which the application was lodged: English
   Parties
   
      Applicant: Giordano Enterprises Ltd (Jalan Merdeka, Malaysia) (represented by: M. Nentwig, lawyer)
   
      Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
   
      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 opposition
   
      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 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; 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 decision 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).