Case T-136/04: Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorderriss, Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband Pfronten against the Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2004-07-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Alpine Region, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), environmental protection, forest, land and buildings, protected area

24.7.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/17

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Community trade mark
sought:

Proprietor of mark or
sign cited in the opposi-
tion proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition.

The applicant

The word mark ‘Online Bus’ for
services
in Class 35 (including
drawing up statistics in the field of
economics, marketing, market
research and market analysis, busi-
ness consultancy and organisation
consultancy)

BUS-Betreuungs- und Unterneh-
mensberatungs-GmbH

German figurative mark ‘BUS’ for
services in Classes 35, 40, 41 and
42 (including business
consul-
tancy,
in particular organisation
consultancy and economic consul-
tancy)

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Registration refused

the Board

Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

European Communities on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorder-
riss, of Lenggries (Germany), Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett,
residing in Aschau i. Chiemgau (Germany), and Rechtlerver-
represented by T.
band Pfronten, of Pfronten (Germany),
Schönfeld, lawyer.

The applicants claim that the Court should:

— annul

the Commission decision of 22 December 2003
adopting, pursuant to Council Directive 92/43/EEC, the list
of sites of Community importance for the Alpine biogeo-
graphical region; (1)

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are the owners of tracts of forest which are
managed by forestry businesses operated by the respective
applicants and which now, under the contested decision, have
been named as sites of Community importance (SCI) for the
Alpine biogeographical region.

— The intervener has failed to
furnish proof of the use of the
mark on which the opposition
is founded, and the opposition
should be rejected under the
second sentence of Article
43(2) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94.

The applicants submit that the contested decision infringes
their fundamental rights guaranteed by the general principles of
the Community legal order. That infringement of fundamental
rights is formally unlawful because upon adoption of
the
Commission Decision (and upon implementation of Directive
92/43/EEC) (2) no form of right of participation is bestowed
upon the property owners concerned.

— As

there

is no similarity
between the opposing marks,
there is no likelihood of confu-
sion within the meaning of
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

Action brought on 8 April 2004 by Domäne Vorderriss,
Rasso Freiherr von Cramer-Klett and Rechtlerverband
the European
Pfronten against

the Commission of

Communities

(Case T-136/04)

(2004/C 190/28)

(Language of the case: German)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the

The applicants further submit that the contested decision also
materially infringes the applicants' property rights because no
consideration was given to the private property rights of the
applicants (and the other persons affected) at the time of desig-
nation of the SCIs and there was therefore no balancing of the
importance of the intended designation of SCIs against that of
the applicants' private rights. Furthermore, the contested deci-
sion is contrary to the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC itself
because the question of the compensation to be paid remains
entirely open and unresolved.

The applicants also submit
the contested decision is
that
disproportionate since it is of itself not suitable to create a
coherent European ecological network, and a ‘list of individual
units’ for only one biogeographical region is thus incapable of
achieving the directive's objective of providing protection. The
contested decision is inappropriate also because the required
Community-wide coordination was not achieved.

(1) OJ L 14, 21.1.2004, p. 21.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation
of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206,
22.7.1992, p. 7).