Action brought on 10 August 2011 — Galileo International Technology v OHIM — ESA (GALILEO)

(Case T-450/11)

2011/C 298/47

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Galileo International Technology LLC (Bridgetown, Barbados) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, 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: European Space Agency (ESA) (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GALILEO’ for services in class 42 — Community trade mark application No 2742237

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 1701167, of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2157501, of the word mark ‘GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 516799, of the figurative mark ‘powered by GALILEO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 330084, of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39, 41 and 42; Community trade mark registration No 2159069, of the figurative mark ‘GALILEO INTERNATIONAL’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 38, 39, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009, as the Board of Appeal failed to appreciate that there was a high degree of similarity between the goods and services covered by the earlier CTM and the services covered by the contested CTM. In particular the Board of Appeal failed to appreciate that part of the relevant goods and services could be complementary, as well as aimed at the same consumer and for the same purpose. In the circumstances of the Board’s conclusion that there was no likelihood of confusion was vitiated by error, bearing in mind the clear similarities between the marks and the fact that a lesser degree of similarity between these goods or services may be offset by a greater degree of similarity between the marks.