Case T-467/04: Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)
Date: 2005-03-19
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cheese, trade-mark law

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/19

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

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The Stilton Cheese Makers Asso-
ciation

National word mark ‘STILTON’;
registered designations of origin
WHITE STILTON CHEESE and
BLUE STILTON CHEESE

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition allowed for Classes 29
and 30

— establish that the letter of 4 June 2004, sent to the Office
and signed jointly does not contain a statement intended to
bring an end to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal, but is only an application for a stay of proceedings;

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office of 20 September 2004 in Case R 982/2002-2 and
refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Pleas in law:

The Board of Appeal held that as
a result of amendments to the
specification of the relevant goods,
in accordance with a joint letter
from the parties of 4 June 2004,
the opposition had been with-
drawn and the proceedings had
therefore been terminated. Since
according to the Board of Appeal,
the only question to be decided
was the allocation of costs, each
party was ordered to bear the fees
and expenses of
the opposition
and appeal proceedings which it
had itself incurred.

— order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

a

stay of

In support of its application, the
applicant submits that the letter of
4 June 2004 contained only an
application for
the
proceedings in order to allow the
parties to resolve between them-
selves the issue, which is still
in
dispute,
other
namely which
goods apart from dairy products
and cheese should be removed
from Class 29 in order to enable
the party in opposition to with-
draw its opposition. The Board of
Appeal erred in holding that the
applicant, having
accepted the
application for a stay of proceed-
ings, had agreed to what the party
in opposition was requesting.

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

Community trade mark
sought:

goods

mark
for

‘GERONIMO
Word
STILTON’
and/or
services in Class 16 (books etc.),
Class 25 (clothing etc.), Class 28
(games etc.), Class 29 (meat etc.),
Class 30 (cake dough etc.) and
Class 41 (services rendered in the
field of education etc.) – Applica-
tion No 1345503

Action brought on 19 November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
against
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

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

The Stilton Cheese Makers Asso-
ciation

(Case T-467/04)

(2005/C 69/36)

(Language in which the application was submitted: French)

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 19
November 2004 by Elisabetta Dami, residing in Milan (Italy),
represented by Paolo Guido Beduschi and Silvia Giudici,
lawyers.

The Stilton Cheese Makers Association was also a party to the
proceedings before the Second Board of Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

National word mark ‘STILTON’;
registered designations of origin
WHITE STILTON CHEESE and
BLUE STILTON CHEESE

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition allowed for Classes 29
and 30

C 69/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

The Board of Appeal held that as
a result of amendments to the
specification of the relevant goods
in accordance with a joint letter
from the parties of 4 June 2004,
the opposition had been with-
drawn and the proceedings had
therefore been terminated. Since
according to the Board of Appeal
the only question to be decided
was the allocation of costs, each
party was ordered to bear the fees
the opposition
and expenses of
and appeal proceedings which it
had itself incurred.

Pleas in law:

The pleas relied on are identical to
those put forward in Case T-466/
04 brought by the same applicant.

Action brought on 24 November 2004 by Bouygues SA
and Bouygues Télécom against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-475/04)

(2005/C 69/37)

(Language of the case: French)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 24 November 2004 by Bouygues
SA, established in Paris, and Bouygues Télécom, established in
Boulogne-Billancourt
represented by Louis Vogel,
Joseph Vogel, Bernard Amory, Alexandre Verheyden, François
Sureau and Didier Théophile, lawyers.

(France),

The applicants claim that the Court should:

1. annul Commission decision C(2004)2647 of 20 July 2004 –
State aid – France concerning alteration of the fees payable
by Orange and SFR for the Universal Mobile Telecommuni-
cation System (UMTS) licences;

2. order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

is

of

the

action

brought

against Commission

This
decision
C(2004)2647 final of 20 July 2004 concluding that aid was
not granted by the French State to Orange France and SFR by
way
of
EUR 4 995 000 000 which each of those operators had under-
taken to pay to the French State for the Universal Mobile Tele-
communication System (UMTS) licence awarded to it on 18
July 2001. By the adoption of that decision, the complaint
lodged by the applicant companies was rejected.

retroactive

reduction

the

fee

in

It is recalled in that regard that the French Government issued
two invitations to apply for the award of the UMTS licences.
The first, in which Orange France and SFR participated, was
launched in August 2000. The amount of the fee had been set
at EUR 4 995 000 000 per licence. Bouygues Télécom had
decided not to compete on account of the price set. In the
second invitation to apply, the amount of the fee was reduced
to EUR 619 000 000. Bouygues Télécom was awarded a
UMTS licence following that second procedure. However,
in
the meantime, the French Government decided to align retroac-
tively the amount of the fees provided for in the first procedure
with that provided for in the second invitation to apply.

In support of their claims, the applicants plead, first, infringe-
ment of Article 87 of the Treaty. They argue in that regard
that:

— State licence fees are public revenue and that the French
State, by altering retroactively the amount of
the fees
payable by Orange and SFR, waived its right to collect a
debt in an immediately available form, payable and of a
fixed amount;

— By relying on the consideration that the contested decision
is justified by the principle of non-discrimination,
the
Commission avoided discussion of the substance of the
issue. It is argued inter alia in that regard that Orange and
SFR were able, through the effect of the French Govern-
ment's decision, to enjoy a temporal advantage arising from
the possibility of penetrating the UMTS market early while
being guaranteed, even though nothing had been envisaged
to that effect during the first invitation to apply, that the
amount of their UMTS licence fee would be reduced to the
level of that required in respect of the second invitation to
apply;

— The decision at issue had a real effect on competition by
enabling Orange and SFR, which were already powerful
to
operators on the French mobile telephony market,
consolidate their position on the emerging UMTS market
and, as a result, to restrict the access of their competitors to
that market.