|
1.8.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 180/53 |
Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)
(Case T-188/09)
2009/C 180/98
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicants: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Residencias Universitarias, SA (Valencia, Spain)
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 19 February 2009 in case R 471/2005-4; and |
|
— |
Order OHIM and the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay their own costs and those incurred by the applicant |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The word mark “GALILEO”, for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42
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: Spanish trade mark registrations of the figurative mark “GALILEO GALILEI” for services in classes 39, 41 and 42, respectively
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 207/2009) as the Board of Appeal committed a procedural error under Article 63(2) of Council Regulation 40/94 (which became Article 65(2) of Council Regulation 207/2009) by failing to remit the case back to the Opposition Division; Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation 40/94 as the Board of Appeal failed to carry out a proper assessment of the likelihood of confusion and incorrectly concluded that the applicant did not argue at all against the reasoning of the Opposition Division on this point; The Board of Appeal erred in its assessment of the similarity and the likelihood of confusion of the trade marks concerned and failed to provide proper reasons for its findings.