Case T-322/04: Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive Company against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM)
Date: 2004-10-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade mark, trade-mark law

23.10.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 262/49

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Decision C (2003) 4708 final of 16 December 2003
by which the Commission authorised the French State to
grant aid to Air Austral;

— order the Commission and the French State to take the
measures necessary to ensure that Air Austral repays the
aid unduly received;

— order the Commission to pay Air Bourbon the sum of
EUR 10 000 in respect of costs pursuant to Article 87(2)
of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

it was

The applicant seeks the annulment of Decision C(2003) 4708
of 16 December 2003 by which the Commission considered,
on the basis of Article 87(3) of the Treaty, that the aid granted
to AIR AUSTRAL was compatible with the common market.
sum of
Specifically
EUR 1 950 536 in the form of a tax allowance in favour of
taxpayers who invest in the refitting of two type B 777-2000
aircraft to be used to open the route between Paris and La
Réunion and which, operating as a general partnership, will
lease those aircraft to AIR AUSTRAL for five years and then
transfer them to that company for an unknown sum.

an operating

aid in the

The contested decision is based on the consideration that the
aid in question is an operating aid which, under the Guidelines
on national regional aid, may be authorised to offset part of
the additional
regions,
including La Réunion.

in the outermost

transport costs

region and the distortions to the conditions of competition
between AIR AUSTRAL and the applicant.

AIR BOURBON also submits that there has been an infringe-
ment of its rights of defence as guaranteed by Article 88(3) of
the Treaty.

Action brought on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-Palmolive
Company against Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM)

(Case T-322/04)

(2004/C 262/92)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (OHIM) was brought before the Court of First Instance
of the European Communities on 5 August 2004 by Colgate-
Palmolive Company, established in New York (United States),
represented by Enrique Armijo Chávarri and Antonio Castán
Pérez-Gómez, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— Annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of
OHIM of 18 May 2004 delivered in Case R 0076/2004-2,
and;

The applicant considers that
considered incompatible with the common market
following reasons:

the aid in question must be
for the

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

— the aid is an investment aid intended for the purchase of
those

transport equipment, which is prohibited under
guidelines;

— the aid is solely intended for AIR AUSTRAL and creates an
imbalance between the distortions of competition and the
benefits in terms of regional development;

— the aid fails to comply with the principle of the non-aggre-
gation of public funds, since AIR AUSTRAL has received
public funds from the Region and Département of La
Réunion which do not correspond to an investment made
by a private investor operating under normal market condi-
tions. Those funds moreover gave rise to excess supply on
the air route between Paris and Saint Denis;

— that aid upsets the balance which must exist between the
benefits arising from the aid for the development of the

Mark covered by the
application:

Word mark
Application No 2688315.

‘SIMPLY WHITE’-

Products or services:

Dentifrices, toothpaste and mouth
wash (Class 3).

Decision
before
Appeal:

challenged
the Board of

Refusal by the Examiner of
application.

the

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Application dismissed.

Grounds for decision:

Incorrect interpretation of Article
7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No
40/94.