ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/55

Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM — Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)

(Case T-6/08)

(2008/C 64/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland) (represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the defendant's Second Board of Appeal of 1 October 2007, Case R 568/2006-2 (CTM 3 156 924);

— decide that the contested CTM application No 3 156 924 RED MUG device with ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ must be rejected;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal;

— order Master Beverage, the other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceedings, including those incurred by the applicant before the Board of Appeal, in case it should become an intervening party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Master Beverage Industries Pte Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Golden Eagle Deluxe’ for goods in class 30 — application No 3 156 924

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

Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national figurative marks and word marks ‘Red Cup’, ‘Gold Blend’ and representations of a cup for, inter alia, coffee

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 8(5) of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks have a high degree of visual similarity because of an identical arrangement of nine elements present in both the trade mark applied for and in most of the earlier marks, which are inherently distinctive.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 79/31

Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

(Case T-34/08)

(2008/C 79/61)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V. (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Henning, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007 disallowing part of the applicant's costs in the context of the ‘Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an agreement on support for a project in connection with the Daphne II programme (1). By letter of 16 November 2007, the defendant sent the applicant a revised calculation of the payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for support. The applicant brought the present action against that decision.

The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested decision is based on an erroneous assessment of the facts. In particular, adequate supporting evidence was inappropriately regarded as being inadequate, and costs of employing temporary assistants and trainees, together with costs provided for in the budget and certain travel costs were inappropriately disallowed.

(1) Decision No 803/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 adopting a programme of Community action (2004 to 2008) to prevent and combat violence against children, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at risk (the Daphne II programme) (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 64/54

Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Coedo Suárez v Council

(Case T-3/08)

(2008/C 64/87)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Angel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— declare this application admissible;

— annul the Council's decision of 30 October 2007 in so far it refuses to grant the applicant the access sought to several Council documents relating to, and arising from, an incident between the applicant and one of his colleagues on 19 February 2004 (minutes of internal meetings, investigation findings and a report of the security service);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision of 30 October 2007, adopted by DG F of the General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, rejecting his formal request for access to documents relating to an incident between the applicant and one of his colleagues.

In support of his action, the applicant relies on two pleas.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regulation No 1049/2001 (1) and infringement of the obligation to state reasons for applying that provision.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 5 of Regulation No 45/2001 (2) and a manifest error in the application of that regulation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1)
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92/42

Action brought on 13 February 2008 — Promat v OHIM — Prosima Comercial (PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A.)

(Case T-71/08)

(2008/C 92/84)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Promat GmbH (Ratingen, Germany) (represented by: S. Beckmann, 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: Prosima Comercial SA (Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market in Case R 574/2007-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Prosima Comercial SA

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark PROSIMA PROSIMA COMERCIAL S.A. for goods and services in Classes 6, 7, 11, 16, 17, 20, 22, 35 to 39, 41 and 42 (Application No 2 423 176)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Promat GmbH

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods and services in Class 7 (German trade mark No 847 011)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was incorrect to take as a basis that the goods were not similar.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 107/42

Action brought on 13 March 2008 — Actega Terra v OHIM (TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss)

(Case T-118/08)

(2008/C 107/71)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Actega Terra GmbH (Lehrte, Germany) (represented by A. Andorfer-Erhard, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul Decision R 1467/2007-1 of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 7 January 2008;

— Declare that Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 do not preclude registration of the Community trade mark applied for No 5 454 517, TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss, for goods in Class 2 ‘Lacquer, in particular for the graphic industry; all goods previously mentioned not for use in the building industry’;

— In the alternative, limit the description of the goods in Community trade mark application No 5 454 517 as follows:

‘Class 2: Lacquer, in particular for the graphic industry, with the characteristic that when applied to an undercoat it produces either a matt or a glossy surface depending on the nature of the undercoat; all goods previously mentioned not for use in the building industry’

and to declare that to that extent Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 do not preclude the possibility of registering the trade mark applied for;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘TERRAEFFEKT matt & gloss’ for goods in Class 2 (Application No 5 454 517).

Decision of the Examiner: Reject the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7 (1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) because the trade mark applied for displays the required distinctive character and is not exclusively descriptive.

(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 116/24

Action brought on 27 February 2008 — Zino Davidoff v OHIM — Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA (GOOD LIFE)

(Case T-108/08)

(2008/C 116/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Zino Davidoff SA (Fribourg, Switzerland) (represented by: H. Kunz-Hallstein and R. Kunz-Hallstein, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE (Glyfada, Greece)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the OHIM in Case R 298/2007-2;

— order the OHIM or the intervener to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 1 709 641

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word marks ‘GOOD LIFE’ for goods in classes 3, 5 and 16

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and remittal of the case to the Opposition Division for further consideration

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 43, 73 and 74 of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95, among others as the Board of Appeal has taken into account goods for which the trade mark applied for does not claim protection and on which the opposition was not based; as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration the evidence presented by Clifarm i. Kleinakis & SIA OE for use of its trade marks; and as the Board of Appeal has considered evidence that the applicant could not evaluate.
1.

Absolute failure to state reasons, given the failure to dispel the confusion between the concept of damage and the concept of the occurrence of an event giving rise to the kind of damage referred to in the second paragraph of Article 288 (formerly 215) EC.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 142/32

Action brought on 4 April 2008 — Schniga v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) — Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand (Gala-Schnitzer)

(Case T-135/08)

(2008/C 142/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Schniga Srl (Bolzano, Italy) (represented by G. Würtenberger, lawyer and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: SNC Elaris (Angers, France) and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd (Havelock North, New Zealand)

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of 21 November 2007 in cases A-003/2007 and A-004/2007; and

— order CPVO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Konsortium Südtiroler Baumschuler, following the transfer of the variety at issue, Schniga Srl (Application No 1999/0033)

Community plant variety right sought for: Gala-Schnitzer

Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted (Decisions No EU 18759, OBJ 06-021 and OBJ 06-022)

Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: SNC Elaris and Brookfield New Zealand Ltd

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of the CPVO

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59(3) of Council Regulation No 2100/94 (1) as the objections to the Community plant variety right do not comply with the said provision; the disputed decision is based on requirements to be fulfilled by the applicant beyond the legislative framework; the power and discretion of the President of CPVO have been wrongly assessed.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/1994 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 116/27

Action brought on 14 March 2008 — Spitzer v OHIM — Homeland Housewares (Magic Butler)

(Case T-123/08)

(2008/C 116/50)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Harald Spitzer (Hörsching, Austria) (represented by: T. Schmitz, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Homeland Housewares, LLC (Los Angeles, United States of America)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 January 2008 (Case R 1508/2006-1);

— reject the opposition entered by Homeland Housewares, LLC, against the word mark for which registration is sought, ‘Magic Butler’ No 4 109 906;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Harald Spitzer.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Magic Butler’ for goods in Classes 7 and 21 (application No 4 109 906)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Homeland Housewares, LLC

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 4 100 483) and the word mark ‘THE MAGIC BULLET’ for goods in Class 7 (Community trade mark 3 584 885)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in part.

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

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EG) No 40/94 (1), because there is no likelihood of confusion between the marks in conflict.

(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 158/20

Action brought on 21 April 2008 — REWE-Zentral v OHIM — Aldi Einkauf (Clina)

(Case T-150/08)

(2008/C 158/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: REWE-Zentral AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, 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: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG (Essen, Germany)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 15 February 2008 in Case R 1484/2006-4;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Clina’ for goods in Classes 3 and 21 (Application No 3 921 079)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Aldi Einkauf GmbH & Co. OHG

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the word mark ‘CLINAIR’ for goods in Classes 3 and 5 (Community trade mark No 1 769 850)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition Division's decision and rejection of the trade mark application

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as there is no likelihood of confusion between the opposing marks.

(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 142/36

Action brought on 18 April 2008 — Abbott Laboratories v OHIM — aRigen (Sorvir)

(Case T-149/08)

(2008/C 142/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Abbott Laboratories (Abbott Park, United States) (represented by: S. Schäffler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: aRigen, Inc. (Tokyo, Japan)

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 6 February 2008 in case R 809/2007-2; and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: aRigen, Inc

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Sorvir’ for goods in class 5 — application No 004 455 507

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

Mark or sign cited: The word mark ‘NORVIR’ for goods in class 5

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: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 as the marks in question are similar and thus likely to cause confusion.
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 171/45

Action brought on 13 May 2008 — Schräder v CPVO — Hansson (Sumost 01)

(Case T-177/08)

(2008/C 171/85)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety Office of 4 December 2007 (Ref. A 005/2007);

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for Community plant variety rights: Ralf Schräder.

Community plant variety right at issue:‘Sumost 01’ (Variety application No 2001/1758).

Proprietor of the opposing Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson.

Opposing Community plant variety right:‘Lemon Symphony’.

Decision of the Community Plant Variety Office, appealed against before the Board of Appeal: Rejection of the application for Community plant variety rights.

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

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 59(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1), in that the applicant was not duly summoned to the oral proceedings;

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (2), in that the appealed decision was based on grounds and evidence on which the applicant had no opportunity to present his comments;

— Infringement of Article 81(2) and Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of the alleged partiality of an employee of the defendant, whose evidence was relied on in the decision;

— Infringement of Article 60 of Regulation No 1239/95, in that no formal decision was issued concerning hearing the oral evidence of an employee of the defendant;

— Infringement of Article 62 of Regulation No 2100/94 by reason of an insufficient and flawed assessment of the facts as regards distinctiveness;

— Infringement of Article 48 of Regulation No 2100/94 on account of alleged partiality on the part of one of the members of the Board of Appeal.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 establishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 of 27 July 1994 on Community plant variety rights (OJ 1994 L 227, p. 1).
EN Official Journal of the European Union C 197/34

Action brought on 25 June 2008 — Melli Bank v Council

(Case T-246/08)

(2008/C 197/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Melli Bank plc (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: R. Gordon, QC, J. Stratford, Barrister, R. Gwynne and T. Din, Solicitors)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul paragraph 4, section B, of the annex to Council Decision 2008/475/EC concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as it relates to Melli Bank plc;

— Grant such further or other relief as may seem just and appropriate in the circumstances;

— Order that the Council pay the Bank's costs of this application.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the present case the applicant seeks the partial annulment of Council Decision 2008/475/EC of 23 June 2008 (1) implementing Article 7(2) of Council Regulation No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (2) in so far as the applicant is included on the list of natural and legal persons, entities and bodies whose funds and economic resources are frozen in accordance with this provision.

The applicant seeks the annulment of paragraph 4, section B, of the Annexe, in so far as it relates to the applicant, on the grounds that it is unlawful in two respects.

First, the applicant claims that the contested decision is disproportionate in that freezing the funds and economic assets of the applicant (i) has no rational relationship with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation or its funding and (ii) it is not the least restrictive mean of exercising vigilance against the applicant or of pursuing the aim of preventing the funding of nuclear proliferation.

Second, the applicant claims that the contested decision violates the principle of non-discrimination in that, on one hand, the applicant is in the same position to other UK subsidiaries of the Iranian banks, and is in materially comparable position to other UK banks including UK banks trading with Iran, but has been treated in a different manner and, on the other hand, is in a significantly different position to another bank designated by the United Nations Security Council but has been treated in the same manner.

(1) OJ 2008 L 163, p. 29.

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1).