Case T-129/05: Action brought on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-05-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), machine-tool industry, supermarket, trade-mark law

C 115/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.5.2005

The applicant contends further that in assessing the price, the
Commission incorrectly, and in breach of the requirements of
paragraph 1.3 of the instructions to tenders based its decision
solely on the basic tender price and thus, in spite of their rele-
vance, the pricing of spare parts and maintenance costs were
not taken into consideration.

Finally, the applicant submits that the competitor All Trade
S.r.l. does not provide any guarantee, either by its expertise or
financial standing or by its technical experience, that it will
successfully carry out the project in question.

Convention. Estonia was a party to that Convention prior to its
accession to the European Union. Article 6(9) of the Act of
Accession of Estonia and the other new Member States to the
European Union (3) provides that as from the date of accession,
fisheries agreements concluded by the new Member States shall
be managed by the Community and that the rights and obliga-
tions resulting for the new Member States from those agree-
ments shall not be affected during the period in which the
provisions of those agreements are provisionally maintained. It
is in this context that the contested measures were issued, allo-
cating Estonia fishing opportunities, measured in metric tons of
allowable catch of certain stocks in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

Action brought on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine
Osaühing against the Council of the European Union

(Case T-127/05)

(2005/C 115/67)

(Language of the case: English)

An action against the Council of the European Union was
brought before the Court of First Instance of the European
Communities on 24 March 2005 by Lootus Teine Osaühing,
established in Tartu (Estonia), represented by T. Sild and K.
Martin, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the annex to Council Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004
of 20 December 2004 amending Regulations (EC) Nos
2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as concerns fishing opportu-
nities for deep sea species for the new Member States
which acceded in 2004 (1), as regards fishing opportunities
allocated to Estonia;

— annul Part 2 of the Annex to Council Regulation (EC) No
2270/2004 (2) of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and
2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing
vessels for certain deep-sea fish stocks, as regards fishing
opportunities allocated to Estonia;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is an Estonian fishing company which practises
deep sea fishing in the area of the North East Atlantic Fisheries

According to the applicant these allocations constitute only a
fraction of what Estonia legally harvested before accession. On
this basis the applicant contends that the contested measures
violated Article 6(9) of the Act of Accession as well as the prin-
ciple of proportionality, and should therefore be annulled.

(1) OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 396, 31.12.2004, p. 4.
(3) OJ L 236, 23.09.2003.

Action brought on 23 February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-129/05)

(2005/C 115/68)

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

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 23
February 2005 by Wal-Mart Stores Inc., represented by Fernand
de Visscher, Emmanuel Cornu, Eric de Gryse, Donatienne
Moreau,
Jorge Grau Mora, Alejandro Angulo Labora, Maite
Ferrándiz Avendaño, María Baylos Morales and Antonio Velás-
quez Ibáñez, lawyers.

14.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 115/39

Alejandro Sánchez Villar was also a party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal.

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the United Kingdom
against the Commission of the European Communities

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) of 17 December 2004 in Case R
629/2004-2 partially refusing Community trade mark
application No 1997600 ‘WAL-MART’;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

(Case T-143/05)

(2005/C 115/69)

(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 11 April 2005 by the United
Kingdom, represented by C.
Jackson, agent, assisted by M.
Hoskins, Barrister.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Community trade mark
sought:

‘WAL-MART’ — Application No
1 997 600 for goods and services
in all classes except Class 35

— annul the refusal of the Commission contained in its letter
of 1 February 2005 to consider the amended national allo-
cation plan submitted by the United Kingdom on 10
November 2004; and;

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

Alejandro Sánchez Villar

— order the Commission to pay the United Kingdom's costs of

this action.

Mark or sign cited in
opposition:

‘WAL-MART’

Spanish
(No
1 732 588) for goods in Class 7
(machinery for gardening)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition partially upheld for
the following products: Machines
and machine tools, motors and
engines (except for land vehicles),
machine coupling and transmis-
sion components (except for land
vehicles), agricultural
implements
other
than hand operated' and
dismissed the opposition for the
remainder
and
the
services applied for.

goods

of

Decision of
of Appeal:

Pleas in law:

the Board

Application dismissed

Infringement of Article 43(2) and
Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94

the European Parliament and of

On 30 April 2004, the United Kingdom notified a provisional
national allocation plan to the Commission pursuant to Direc-
tive 2003/87/EC of
the
Council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for green-
house gas emission allowance trading within the Community
and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC (1). A number of
ongoing activities were identified in the plan, which according
to the United Kingdom had a provisional character.

On 7 July 2004,
the Commission adopted Decision
C(2004)2515/4 final concerning the submitted plan identifying
certain incompatibilities with Annex III of the Directive.

Following the completion of the activities identified in the
provisional national allocation plan, the United Kingdom noti-
fied the Commission on 10 November 2004 that it wished to
amend the provisional national allocation plan to take account
of the results of this work.

By letter of 1 February 2005 the Commission informed the
United Kingdom that its request to amend its national alloca-
tion plan was inadmissible as an increase of the total quantity
of allowances of 19,8 million tonnes did not aim at addressing
the incompatibilities identified in the Commission's Decision.