Claim that EU's use of "Galileo" for satellite navigation system infringes applicants' trade mark - Case Filing T-279/03: Galileo International Technology v Commission

Luxembourg, 18 October 2003

Action brought on 5 August 2003 by Galileo International Technology LLC and 13 Others against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-9/03) Official Journal publication of the filing

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 5 August 2003 by Claude Delcorde, Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros Maniatopoulos, lawyers, represented by Claude Delcorde, Jean-Noël Louis, Julie-Anne Delcorde and Spyros Maniatopoulos, lawyers, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

- Prohibit the Commission from making any use of the word `Galileo' in relation to the satellite radio navigation system project and to cease causing directly or indirectly any third party whatsoever to use that word in the context of that project, and prohibit it from having any part whatsoever in the use of that word by any third party;

- order the Commission to pay the applicants, acting jointly and severally, the amount of EUR 50 million as compensation for the material damage suffered;

In the alternative,

- in the event that the Commission continues to use the word `Galileo', order it to pay the applicants an amount of EUR 240 million;

- order the Commission to pay the applicant, as from the date of filing of the application, default interest calculated by reference to the ECB rate plus 2 per cent;

- order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants, who are the proprietors of a number of trade marks and company names containing the word `Galileo' as an essential component, argue that the adoption of that word by the Commission as the name for the Community project on the European satellite radio navigation system infringes their trade mark rights.

The action is based on Article 288 of the EC Treaty. The applicants claim there is a likelihood of confusion based on the alleged similarity between the signs in question and between the goods and services sold by the applicants and the subject-matter of the Community project. They also claim that the Commission acted unfairly and negligently with regard to their rights, and plead infringement of the principle of proportionality.

Official Journal of the EC