Case T-214/04: Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2004-08-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), polishing and scouring preparations, trade-mark law

C 217/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.8.2004

In this regard, the applicant states that the assumption that
Gibraltar is part of the United Kingdom, is wrong. According
to the applicant, this is clear under domestic constitutional law,
public international law and Community law.

Action brought on 8 June 2004 by the Royal County of
Berkshire Polo Club Ltd against the Office for Harmonisa-
tion in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM)

selectivity principle

furthermore submits that

the Commission's
The applicant
regional
apply to Gibraltar.
According to the applicant, the decision concerns two tax juris-
dictions which are entirely separate and mutually exclusive so
that Gibraltar's tax laws cannot be treated as derogations from
tax law in the United Kingdom.

cannot

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission misap-
plied the law and committed errors in reasoning in finding that
tax reform is materially selective. According to the applicant,
the reform is of a general nature and represents a reasonable
choice of economic policy by Gibraltar.

According to the applicant, the provisions that companies who
make no profits are not taxed and that companies are not
required to pay more than a specified maximum amount, are
merely designed to avoid over-taxation and do not apply selec-
tively to a particular group or category.

(Case T-214/04)

(2004/C 217/50)

(Language of the case to be determined pursuant to Article 131(2) of
the Rules of Procedure Language in which the application was
submitted: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) was brought before
the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 8
June 2004 by the Royal County of Berkshire Polo Club Ltd,
Windsor (United Kingdom), represented by J. H. Maitland
Walker, Solicitor, and D. McFarland, Barrister.

The Polo/Lauren Company LP was also a party to the proceed-
ings before the Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of March
25, 2004 in case R 273/2002-1 rejecting the applicant's
application

— order the Office to pay the costs

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant also claims that the Commission is wrong in
stating in relation to the payroll tax and property tax not
applying to companies without commercial buildings or
employees in Gibraltar, that the reform exempts an offshore
sector and is materially selective on hat ground. The applicant
claims furthermore that
the Commission breached essential
procedural requirements in this regard because neither the
United Kingdom nor the applicant were given an opportunity
to comment on this issue during the formal investigation.

Community trade mark
sought:

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

the applicant

Figurative mark ‘ROYAL COUNTY
OF BERKSHIRE POLO CLUB’for
goods in class 3 (cleaning prepara-
tions etc.)

Polo Lauren Company LP

Finally, the applicant submits that the reform cannot be consid-
ered selective because its nature, general scheme and essential
features are designed to suit the special characteristics of the
economy in Gibraltar and in particular its limited size, scarcity
of labour, service dominated industry and operational simpli-
city for a small administration.

(1) State aid C 66 /2002 — Gibraltar government corporation tax

reform

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

National
and work
marks containing the word ‘POLO’

figurative

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition rejected

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Decision of
the opposition divi-
sion annulled; registration refused

Pleas in law:

Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation 40/94 (1). The appli-
cant argues that the signs in ques-
tion are dissimilar.