ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/21

Action brought on 5 February 2008 — British Sky Broadcasting Group v OHIM — Vortex (SKY)

(Case T-66/08)

(2008/C 116/39)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: British Sky Broadcasting Group plc (Isleworth, United Kingdom) (represented by: J. Barry, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Vortex SA (Paris, France)

Form of order sought

— Order, on the basis that the First Board of Appeal has infringed Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 and/or rules of law relating to its application, that: — in the decision of the First Board of Appeal, while the ultimate conclusion of the First Board of Appeal to reject the opposition should not be disturbed, that part of the contested decision (in particular paragraphs 18 and 19 thereof) which reject the applicant's arguments relating to the Agreement, should be annulled; — the contested decision be altered to hold that the Agreement; applies to trade marks other than the particular registrations identified in the Agreement and extends to future marks; precludes the opponent from opposing or objecting in any manner whatsoever to any use or registration by BSkyB of trade marks containing ‘SKY’ other than ‘SKYROCK’ and ‘SKYZIN’ both of which were as determined by the French courts; and is a final and binding settlement agreement between BSkyB and the opponent as determined by the French courts (including to the highest level in France); — the contested decision be altered and revisited so as to deal with and address all of the grounds raised by BSkyB in its response to the opposition; — OHIM pay the costs and fees of BSkyB.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SKY’ for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42 — application No 3 166 378

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Vortex SA

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘SKYROCK’ for goods and services classes 9, 16, 18, 25, 28, 35, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld for all the goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 41, as well as for ‘advertising’ in class 35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Without contesting the operative part of the contested decision, the applicant contends that the reasoning of the Board of Appeal infringes Council Regulation No 40/94 and the rules of law relating to its application.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 158/22

Action brought on 30 April 2008 — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-164/08)

(2008/C 158/36)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: P. Gentili, avvocato dello Stato)

Defendants: Commission of the European Communities and European Personnel Selection Office

Form of order sought

— annulment of notice of open competition EPSO/AD/125/08 (AD7 and AD 9) for the constitution of a reserve from which to recruit 4 and 9 doctors in the ‘Commission channel’ and ‘other institutions channel’ respectively, published in the English, French and German editions of the Official Journal of the European Union C 48 A of 21 February 2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied on in Case T-117/08 Italy v Commission (1).

(1) Not yet published in the Official Journal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/43

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Messe Düsseldorf v OHIM — Canon Communications (MEDTEC)

(Case T-173/08)

(2008/C 171/83)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Messe Düsseldorf GmbH (Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Canon Communications LLC (Los Angeles, United States)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 March 2008 in case R 0989/2005-1; and

— order OHIM/the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MEDTEC’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35 and 41 — application No 2 885 853

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

Mark or sign cited: The national word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42; the international word trade mark ‘Metec’ for goods and services in classes 16, 35, 37, 38, 41 and 42

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition with respect to all goods and services

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal was incorrect to allow the appeal and to state that there is no similarity between the trade marks; infringement of Article 62 of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal rendered a decision on facts which were not subject to appeal.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/42

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Commission v I.D. FOS Research

(Case T-170/08)

(2008/C 171/81)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: R. Lyal and W. Roels, Agents)

Defendant: I.D. FOS Research EEIG (Mol, Belgium)

Form of order sought

— order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 21 599,26 together with default interest in the sum of EUR 6 375,94;

— order the defendant to pay default interest of EUR 3,99 per day from 8 January 2007 until the date of full repayment of the debt;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The European Community, represented by the Commission, entered into Contract BRPR-CT-95-0099 with the defendant on 12 December 1995. The contract concerned a project on improved quality assurance and methods of grouting post-tensioned cables. The contract and the project came into being within the framework of the specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1).

An examination of the defendant's performance of the contract was undertaken after completion of the contract. On the basis of the results of that examination, the Commission decided to demand repayment of part of the sums paid, in accordance with the general conditions of the contract.

(1) Council Decision 94/571/EC of 27 July 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including demonstration, in the field of industrial and materials technologies (1994-1998) (OJ 1994 L 222, p. 19).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/27

Action brought on 21 May 2008 — Cattin and Cattin v Commission

(Case T-194/08)

(2008/C 197/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: R. Cattin & Cie (Bimbo, Central African Republic) and Yves Cattin (Cadiz, Spain) (represented by: B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company a total of EUR 18 946 139 for material loss suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay the applicant company the sum of EUR 100 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Order the defendant to pay Mr Cattin the sum of EUR 150 000 for non-material loss suffered;

— Add default interest to those amounts to run from the date of delivery of the judgment in the present case until effective payment, at an annual rate equal to the rate fixed by the European Central Bank for main refinancing operations plus 2 points, such rate not to exceed 6 %;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the case, those incurred both by the applicant company and by Mr Cattin.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant company, specialising in production, processing and exportation of coffee in the Central African Republic, has been refused reimbursement via funds of the European Development Fund (EDF) of debts which it held from the State body ‘Soutien Café’, a body created to support the price of coffee at the time of large reductions in prices at the end of the 1980's. The applicant company was refused reimbursement on the ground that, according to an audit report established at the request of the national authorities, it had probably embezzled certain sums for the benefit of its associates. Following that refusal, the applicant company has had to suspend all its activities and dismiss the 800 permanent employees working in its plantations.

In support of their action, the applicants allege, firstly, a breach of (i) their rights of the defence, since the applicant company did not present evidence at the time the audit report which found that there had been embezzlement was established and (ii) of the presumption of innocence, since no evidence was put forward to support that finding.

Next, the applicants raise a plea alleging breach of the principles of effective judicial protection, legal certainty and the duty to give reasons, since the applicant company was refused reimbursement without the Commission having sent it any decision and without the company having been informed formally of the recommendations of the audit report on which that refusal was based.

Finally, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed the principles of due care and sound administration, since applications sent to the Commission by the national authorities concerning the applicant company's case went unanswered and the audit report was based on incorrect figures, which meant that a second expert opinion was required, which the Commission accepted without, however, obtaining such an opinion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 183/26

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — Forum 187 v Commission

(Case T-189/08)

(2008/C 183/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Forum 187 ASBL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Sutton, G. Forwood, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European communities

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision insofar as it does not provide reasonable prospective transitional periods for the coordination centres covered by the judgment of the Court of Justice of 22 June 2006;

— order the Commission to pay costs of this case and

— take such other or further steps as justice may require.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 on the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination centres established in Belgium, amending Decision 2003/757/EC (1) following the partial annulment of that first decision by the Court of Justice (2). In that ruling, the ECJ held that the 2003 decision did not provide transitional measures for those coordination centres with an application for renewal of their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested decision was notified, or with an authorisation which expired at the same time as or shortly after the notification of that decision.

The contested decision creates transitional periods for the category of centres covered by the Court's ruling.

The applicant states in support of its contentions that the contested decision:

— is incompatible with Community law on existing aids, as consistently interpreted by the European Courts;

— denies the centres their legitimate expectations to benefit from a reasonable period after the Commission's final decision closing the existing aid procedure (notified to the applicant on 17 March 2008), to re-arrange their business and fiscal affairs;

— infringes Article 254(3) EC;

— by providing for the retroactive levying and payment taxes in an existing aid case, in effect orders the recovery of the aid as if it was illegal aid and this fails to respect the principle that existing aids schemes should only be changed prospectively, at a date after the final Commission decision closing the existing aid procedure;

— fails to respect the legitimate expectations of coordination centres which relied on the order of the President of the Court of Justice of 26 June 2003 (3) as a legal basis upon which they could obtain the renewal of authorisations;

— infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimination by providing different treatment without objective justification for different groups of centres.

(1) OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7.

(2) Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, [2006] ECR I-5479].

(3) Joined Cases C-182/03 R and C-217/03 R, Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission, [2003] ECR I-6887].
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 209/65

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — Eugenia Montero Padilla v OHIM — Padilla Requena (JOSE PADILLA)

(Case T-255/08)

(2008/C 209/115)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Eugenia Montero Padilla (Madrid, Spain) (represented by: G. Aguillaume Gandasegui and P. Linde Puelles, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: José María Padilla Requena

Form of order sought

Annul OHIM's decision of 1 March 2008 and order that the application for registration be refused in respect of Community trade mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ for Classes 9a, 23a and 41a.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Eugenia Montero Padilla

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ (registration application No 2.844.066) for goods and services in Classes 9, 25 and 41.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark ‘JOSE PADILLA’ (registration application No 2.844.066) for goods and services in Class 41.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Dismissal of the opposition

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

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Articles 4 and 7(1)(a),(b),(c) and (f) Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/53

Action brought on 26 June 2008 — Associazione Giullemanidallajuve v Commission

(Case T-254/08)

(2008/C 223/93)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: L'Associazione Giullemanidallajuve (Garibaldi, Italy) (represented by: L.Misson, G. Ernes and A. Kettels, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that the Commission has failed to act;

— instruct the Commission to use its powers and to reply to the complaint lodged by the applicant in May 2007;

— obtain all the information necessary for that purpose.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant claims that theCommission failed to fulfil its obligation to act in that after being invited to do so it did not express its opinion on the complaint lodged by the applicant with the Commission in May 2007 concerning alleged contraventions of Articles 81 and 82 EC committed by the Federazione Italiana Giuoco Calcio (FIGC), the Comitato Olimpico Nazionale Italiano (CONI), the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) and the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA).

The applicant considers that the letter which was sent to it by the Commission in March 2008 further to the invitation to act and which informed it that the case was being dealt with, does not represent an expression of opinion, since the letter did not provide any replies on the substance of the requests made by the applicant.

The applicant also claims that, in the area of competition, a complainer is entitled to expect that its complaint will be examined thoroughly by the Commission, and that a reasoned opinion will be expressed.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 223/47

Action brought on 13 June 2008 — Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel v OHIM — Schwarzbräu (ALASKA)

(Case T-225/08)

(2008/C 223/82)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH (Ebersburg, Germany) (represented by: P. Wadenbach, 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: Schwarzbräu GmbH (Zusmarshausen, Germany)

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 8 April 2008 (Case R 877/2004-4);

— Completely delete the Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ owing to the existence of absolute grounds for refusal;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings;

— In the alternative to the second application, declare Community trade mark No 505 552 ‘ALASKA’ invalid at least in respect of the following goods: ‘Mineral waters and carbonated waters and other non-alcoholic drinks in Class 32’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the figurative mark ‘ALASKA’ for goods in Class 32 (Community trade mark No 505 552)

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Schwarzbräu GmbH

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Mineralbrunnen Rhön-Sprudel Egon Schindel GmbH

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the application for the declaration of invalidity of the trade mark concerned.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b), (c) and (g) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

(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 223/49

Action brought on 16 June 2008 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (ROI ANALYZER)

(Case T-233/08)

(2008/C 223/86)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 April 2008 in Case R 1525/2006-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ROI ANALYZER’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 35 and 42 (Application No 4 866 042).

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected in part.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in that the trade mark applied for does not lack distinctive character and no requirement of availability exists for it.

(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 260/17

Action brought on 18 August 2008 — Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli v OHIM (Representation of an Easter bunny made of chocolate)

(Case T-336/08)

(2008/C 260/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland) (represented by: R. Lange, E. Schalast and G. Hild, lawyers)

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

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 11 June 2008 (Appeal Case R 1332/2005-4); and

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A three-dimensional mark, representing an Easter bunny made of chocolate, for goods in Class 30 (Application No 3 844 446).

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application.

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

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the trade mark applied for has the necessary distinctive character and its availability does not have to be preserved. Furthermore, the trade mark applied for demonstrates distinctiveness acquired through use for the purposes of Article 7(3) of Regulation No 40/94.

(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 247/15

Action brought on 17 July 2008 — Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis v Commission

(Case T-279/08)

(2008/C 247/29)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Communauté d'agglomération du Douaisis (represented by: M.-Y Benjamin, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision No C 38/2007 of the Commission of 2 April 2008.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of the decision C(2008) 1089 final of the Commission of the European Communities of 2 April 2008 by which the Commission declared incompatible with the common market the State aid granted by the applicant and the Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais in favour of Arbel Fauvet Rail SA in the form of advances repayable at an annual rate of interest of 4,08 % corresponding to the Community reference rate applicable when the loan was granted. The Commission considered that, taking into account its financial standing, Arbel Fauvet Rail SA would not have been able to obtain funds on such favourable terms in the financial market.

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant are similar to those relied on in Case T-267/08 Région Nord-Pas-de-Calais v Commission.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 272/38

Action brought on 12 August 2008 — Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo and Others v Commission

(Case T-328/08)

(2008/C 272/76)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Mareggiando in Calabria — Servizi Pesca Turismo Soc. coop. (Vibo Valentia, Italy), De Leonardo (Vibo Valentia, Italy), Finelli (Vibo Valentia, Italy) (represented by: A. Maiorana, A. De Matteis and A. De Francesco, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul Commission Regulation (EC) No 530/2008 of 12 June 2008, published in OJ L 155 of 13 June 2008.

— Order the Commission to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are the same as those relied on in Case T-313/08 Veromar di Tudisco Alfio & Salvatore S.n.c v Commission.