- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-188/09: Action brought on 12 May 2009 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — Residencias Universitarias (GALILEO)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62009TN0188
62009TN0188
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
Official Journal of the European Union
C 180/53
(Case T-188/09)
(2009/C 180/98)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: 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.