ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/29

Action brought on 20 November 2007 — Pioneer Hi-Bred International v OHIM (OPTIMUM)

(Case T-424/07)

(2008/C 8/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc. (Johnston, United States) (represented by: G. Würtenberger, R. Kunze, and T. Wittmann, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 11 September 2007 in Case R 288/2007-2 concerning Community trade mark application No 4 893 053 ‘OPTIMUM’ be annulled;

— defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘OPTIMUM’ for goods in class 1 — application No 4 893 053

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 7(1)(b) and (c), 7(2), 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 by not taking into consideration the fact that the goods in question address a specialised public and by not supporting the decision on evidence of use of the trade mark applied for.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/24

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Bayern Innovativ v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)

(Case T-413/07)

(2008/C 8/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Innovation und Wissenstransfer mbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser, C. Thomas, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

Form of order sought

— To annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal No R 1545/2006-1 of 2 August 2007 regarding Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’;

— to reject the opposition No B 795 270 of the intervener in its entirety;

— to order the OHIM to register the Community trade mark No 3 585 957 ‘LifeScience’ as published;

— to order the other party to pay the costs incurred in the proceedings before the Court and to order the intervener to pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a coloured representation of a spiral DNA chain, an oval and a grid and containing the verbal elements ‘LifeScience’ written below for goods and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41, 42 — application No 3 585 957

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Life Sciences Partners Perstock N.V.

Mark or sign cited: The figurative Community trade mark consisting of a representation of a naked woman wrapped in a DNA chain and containing the word elements ‘Life Sciences Partners’ for services in Classes 35 and 36 — application No 2 136 026.

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 (EC) Council Regulation No 40/94.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/25

Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)

(Case T-434/07)

(2008/C 37/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden) (represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elena Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russia)

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 2 August 2007 in Case No R 1240/2006-2; and

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Elena Grebenshikova

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’ for goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application No 3 555 422

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

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word and figurative mark ‘VOLVO’ for, inter alia, goods and services in classes 9 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the trade marks in question are visually and phonetically similar and as the Board of Appeal did not take all relevant factors, including the identity of the goods concerned and the reputation of VOLVO, into account.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 22/45

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM (Representation of a hand holding a card plus three triangles)

(Case T-414/07)

(2008/C 22/85)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Européene de traitement de l'Information (Euro-Information) (Strasbourg, France) (represented by P. Greffe and M. Chaminade, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 6 September 2007 in Case R 290/2007-1, in so far as it refused the registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of goods and services claimed in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42;

— registration of the Community trade mark No 5 225 776 in respect of all the goods and services claimed.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark comprising a representation of a hand holding a card followed by three black triangles for goods and services in Classes 9, 35, 36, 38 and 42 (Application No 5 225 776)

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant states that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the elements comprising the trade mark, the registration of which was partially refused, are distinctive and arbitrary in respect of the goods and services claimed and, consequently, their combination must be also considered to be distinctive and arbitrary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 51/47

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Dominio de la Vega v OHIM — Ambrosio Velasco (DOMINIO DE LA VEGA)

(Case T-458/07)

(2008/C 51/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Dominio de la Vega, S.L. (Requena, Spain) (represented by: E. Caballero Oliver, lawyer and A. Sanz-Bernell y Martinéz, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A. (Dicastillo, Navarra, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of OHIM of 3 October 2007 (Case R 1431/2006-2) and consequently dismiss the opposition filed by Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Dominio de la Vega, S.L.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘DOMINIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Classes 33, 42 and 43 (Application No 2.789.576).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Ambrosio Velasco, S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative Community trade mark ‘PALACIO DE LA VEGA’ for goods in Class 33.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all those goods, in Class 33, against which it was directed, and rejection of the application for those goods.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs in dispute.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 37/25

Action brought on 29 November 2007 — New Look v OHIM (NEW LOOK)

(Case T-435/07)

(2008/C 37/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: New Look Ltd (Weymouth, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Blair and K. Gilbert, Solicitors)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal dated 3 September 2007 in Case R 670/2007-2 shall be annulled.

— The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘NEW LOOK’ for goods and services in classes 3, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 26 and 35 — application No 2 932 606

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(3) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of Appeal i) erred in requiring the applicant to demonstrate acquired distinctive character in a Member State other than the United Kingdom and Ireland; ii) erred in holding that the applicant's evidence of use of ‘NEW LOOK’ in stylised form or together with a distinctive device was incapable of imbuing the mark with distinctive character; and iii) failed to place sufficient overall weight on the applicant's evidence of use in the United Kingdom and Ireland.
—

declare invalid Articles 4 and 5 of the Commission decision of 23 October 2007 in Case No C 23/2006 (ex NN 35/2006) concerning State aid granted by Poland to the steel producer Grupa Technologie Buczek in so far as those provisions concern the recovery of the aid mentioned in Article 1 of the decision;
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/54

Appeal brought on 2 May 2008 by Erika Krcova against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered on 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06, Krcova v Court of Justice

(Case T-498/07 P)

(2008/C 209/98)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Erika Krcova (Trnava, Slovakia) (represented by J. Rooy, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Court of Justice of the European Communities

Form of order sought by the appellant

— Annul the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Second Chamber) of 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice, not yet published in the ECR,

— Annul the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities of 17 October 2005 by which the appellant was dismissed following her probationary period and, in so far as necessary, the decision of 16 September 2005 to extend her probationary period by two months, and the report on the probationary period of 12 September 2005 recommending her dismissal,

— Order the defendant to pay the costs incurred before the Civil Service Tribunal and before the Court of First Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present appeal, the appellant seeks annulment of the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) of 18 October 2007 in Case F-112/06 Krcova v Court of Justice dismissing the action by which the appellant sought annulment of the decision of the Court of Justice dismissing the appellant at the end of her probationary period.

The appellant claims that the CST ruled ultra petita and incorrectly interpreted Article 34 of the Staff Regulations of the European Communities.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/43

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-481/07)

(2008/C 64/72)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulenbelt, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 10 May 2007 (OJ 2007 C 227, p. 4) concerning the Flemish rules on support for inter-modal transport via inland waterways (Aid measure N 682/2006 — Belgium). In the contested decision the Commission regards the support measure as compatible with the common market and decides not to raise any objection.

In support of their application, the applicants claim that there has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June 1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 362) and Articles 12 and 73 EC. They state that the subsidy is available on the transhipment of containers in Flemish inland ports when the containers enter or leave the European Union via a Flemish sea port but not when a sea port is in another Member State. They claim that this constitutes discrimination on grounds of nationality.

They also argue that the subsidy leads to a distortion of competition, as it seriously disadvantages all ports in north-west Europe which trade with the Flemish hinterland, and particularly the port of Rotterdam.

They also plead infringement of the obligation to investigate and state reasons. They maintain that the Commission has failed to investigate the consequences for competition and to explain why an economic investigation was not necessary.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/58

Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)

(Case T-10/08)

(2008/C 64/93)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1337/2006-3;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for an ‘Internal-combustion engine’ — Community Design No 000 163 290 — 0001

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered US design in respect for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Patent No D 367 070

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Invalidity Division and declared the design invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/58

Action brought on 7 January 2008 — Kwang Yang Motor v OHIM — Honda Giken Kogyo (Representation of an internal-combustion engine)

(Case T-11/08)

(2008/C 64/94)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Kwang Yang Motor Co. Ltd (Kaohsiung City, Taiwan) (represented by: P. Rath and W. Festl-Wietek, lawyers)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd (Tokyo, Japan)

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of the OHIM of 8 October 2007 served to the representatives of the applicant on 30 October 2007, in Case R 1380/2006-3;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court and Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community design subject of the application for a declaration of invalidity: Registered Community design for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Community Design No 000 163 290 — 0002

Proprietor of the Community design: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community design: Honda Giken Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Co. Ltd

Design of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity: Registered US design in respect for an ‘internal-combustion engine’ — Patent No D 282 071

Decision of the Invalidity Division: Rejected the application for invalidity in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulled the decision of the Invalidity Division and declared the design invalid

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 4 and 6 of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community Designs

The applicant claims that the freedom of designers of combustion engines is narrowed to designs which fulfil the requirement of functionality. In addition, the industry's state of art being nearly exhausted, it is even more difficult for designers in this field to provide an alternative offering a totally different overall impression without reducing the design's functionality. Hence, according to the applicant, even the slightest details have to be taken into consideration when assessing the individual character of the design.

The applicant further submits that it nevertheless succeeded to maintain functionality as well as technical features of the challenged design, while giving its essential components an individual character.
(3)

Infringement of essential procedural requirements in relation to absence of preliminary enquiries and infringement of the rights of the defence. In its decision the Commission stated that the results of an economic study to assess all the sacrifices imposed on Terni in consequence of the expropriation and all the benefits obtained by that company by way of compensation were irrelevant because the suitability of the compensation mechanism can be assessed only ex ante, namely, at the time of the expropriation. The study was carried out in accordance with previous Commission guidance. The Commission, taking the view that in the abstract a study requested by it previously was irrelevant, should have carried out further preliminary enquiries, reopening the discussion concerning the methods of carrying out the study.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/32

Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission

(Case T-32/08)

(2008/C 92/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena Systimata Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Commission to evaluate the applicant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the successful contractor;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's damages suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question for an amount of EUR 65 565;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with this application, even if the current application is rejected.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its claims the applicant argues that, in the framework of the tendering procedure ENV.A.1/SER/2007/0032 for the ‘Market analysis in view of developing a new approach for the “Environment for Young Europeans” website’ (OJ 2007/S 83-100898) the European Commission failed to comply with its obligations foreseen in the Financial Regulation (1), its Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/18/EC (2).

The applicant moreover submits that the contracting authority committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted in the rejection of its bid. Furthermore, the contracting authority allegedly infringed its obligation to state reasons for its decision and, in particular, to inform the applicant on the relative merits of the successful tenderer.

The applicant requests, hence, that the decision of the European Commission to reject its bid and to award the contract to the successful tenderer be annulled and that the defendant is ordered to pay all legal expenses related to the proceedings even in case the application is rejected. In the alternative, since the contract will most probably have been fully executed by the time the Court reaches its decision or if it is no longer possible to annul the decision, the applicant requests monetary compensation (damages) in accordance with Articles 235 and 288 EC.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2004/18/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/29

Action brought on 14 January 2008 — Quest Diagnostics v OHIM — ALK-Abelló (DIAQUEST)

(Case T-22/08)

(2008/C 92/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Quest Diagnostics Inc. (Teterboro, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: ALK-Abelló A/S (Hørsholm, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM dated 25 October 2007;

— annul the decision of the Opposition Division of OHIM dated 11 October 2006; and

— order the intervener to bear the costs of the action.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: ALK-Abelló A/S

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark ‘DIAQUEST’ for goods in classes 1, 5 and 42

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

Mark or sign cited: The Community word marks ‘QUEST DIAGNOSTICS’ for goods and services in classes 5, 10, 16, 35, 39 and 42 — application No 2 402 980 and No 1 958 589

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejected the opposition in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTRM.