Case T-3/05: Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-03-19
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 69/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

19.3.2005

Pleas in law and main arguments

January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V., established in Hoofd-
dorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.

Applicant for the Com-
munity trade mark:

Pharmaceuticals

Teva
Limited

Industries

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Community trade mark
concerned:

for
The word mark ‘GALZIN’
goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical
preparations for the treatment of
Wilson's disease – Application No
1 606 102)

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

The applicant

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

The national word mark ‘CALSYN’
for products in Class 5 (pharma-
ceutical and medical preparations,
calcium-based
more
preparations – French trade mark
No 1 226 303)

specifically

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition upheld

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of the decision of the
Opposition Division

Pleas in law relied on:

Misinterpretation of Article 43(2)
of Council Regulation No 40/94
given that all the products claimed
had not been taken into account
and there was no overall compar-
ison of the two trade marks. The
goods covered by the two marks
in conflict are similar.

— annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the

OHIM;

— allow the registration of the Community trade mark appli-

cation No 1 155 712;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
concerned:

The three dimensional mark of a
white and blue rectangular tablet
with an oval white centre for
goods in classes 1 and 3 (Chemical
products for industrial purposes;
bleaching preparations and other
substances for
-
application No 1 155 712

laundry use,...)

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Rejection of the application

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94

Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser
N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Action brought on 4 January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser
N.V. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-2/05)

(2005/C 69/40)

(Language of the case: English)

(Case T-3/05)

(2005/C 69/41)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4

An action against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) was brought before the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 4
January 2005 by ReckittBenckiser N.V., established in Hoofd-
dorp (The Netherlands) represented by G.S.P. Vos, lawyer.

19.3.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/23

The applicant claims that the Court should:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the contested decision of the Board of Appeal of the

OHIM;

— allow the registration of the Community trade mark appli-

cation No 1 155 712;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs in accordance with Article
the Court of First

the Rules of Procedure of

87(2) of
Instance.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark
concerned:

The three dimensional mark of a
white and blue rectangular tablet
with an oval red centre for goods
in classes 1 and 3 (Chemical
products for industrial purposes;
bleaching preparations and other
laundry use and
substances for
dishwashing,...)
- application No
1 156 595

Decision of
iner:

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the exam-

Rejection of the application

the Board

Dismissal of the appeal

Violation of Article 7(1)(b) of
Council Regulation No 40/94

— annul

the Decision of

the European Commission of 6
October 2004 in the State aid matter N 313/2004 -
Denmark Recapitalisation of TV2/Danmark A/S;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants'

fees,
costs and other expenses incurred in connection with this
application.

legal

Pleas in law and main arguments

The contested decision relates to an injection of capital and a
conversion of a State loan into equity by the Danish Govern-
ment for the benefit of TV2/Danmark A/S, which it considered
necessary to avoid the bankruptcy of TV2 resulting from the
repayment of amounts of
illegal State aid ordered by the
Commission in a decision of 19 May 2004 (1) establishing the
Government's overcompensation of TV2's public service cost.
In the contested decision, the Commission held that State aid
might be involved in the Government's recapitalisation of TV2,
but that if so it would be compatible with the common market
under Article 86(2) EC.

that

in adopting the decision,

The applicants submit
the
Commission infringed Articles 86(2), 87(1), 88(2) and 253 EC,
the Protocol annexed to the EC Treaty on the system of public
broadcasting in the Member States, Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (2), and the Commu-
nication from the Commission on the application of the State
aid rules to public service broadcasting (3).

Action brought on 7 January 2005 by TV Danmark A/S
and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., against the Commission of the
European Communities

(Case T-12/05)

(2005/C 69/42)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Commission of the European Commu-
nities was brought before the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities on 7 January 2005 by TV Danmark A/
S, Skovlunde, (Denmark) and Kanal 5 Denmark Ltd., Hounslow
(United Kingdom) represented by D. Vandermeersch, T. Müller-
Ibold, K. Nordlander and H. Peytz, lawyers with an address for
service in Luxembourg.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission infringed Articles 87(1), 88(3) and 86(2) EC,
when, after having found that the private investor principle, as
applied to long-term investment, could not be invoked given
the uncertainty surrounding the planned privatisation of TV2,
it failed to establish and to quantify the State aid.

Secondly, the applicants submit that the Commission infringed
Article 86(2) EC, the Protocol, and the Broadcasting Communi-
cation when it based itself on a definition of a service of a
general economic interest which is too broad, too imprecisely
worded and creates a distortion of competition and an effect
on trade contrary to Article 86(2) EC. The applicants also claim
that the Commission failed to establish that compliance with
the Recovery Decision without the subsequent recapitalisation
would obstruct TV2 in the performance of its public service
tasks.