Case T-146/05: Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-06-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), furniture industry, textile product, trade-mark law

C 143/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.6.2005

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Internationaler
Hilfsfonds e.V. against the Commission of the European
Communities

In addition, the applicant submits that the European Commis-
sion's action is arbitrary.

(Case T-141/05)

(2005/C 143/75)

(Language of the case: German)

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ 2001 L 145,
p. 43).

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institu-
tions and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8, p. 1).

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 Internationaler
Hilfsfonds e.V., Rosbach v.d.H. (Germany), represented by H.
Kaltenecker, lawyer.

The applicant claims that the Court of First Instance should:

— annul the decision of the Commission of 14 February 2005
by which it denied the applicant unrestricted access to the
Commission's file in relation to Contract LIEN 97-2011;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and

those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the contested document the Commission denied the appli-
cant unrestricted access to the European Commission's file
relating to Contract LIEN 97-2011 by reference to Article
4(1)(b) and the second subparagraph of Article 4(3) of the
Transparency Regulation (1) and to the Data Protection Regu-
lation (2).

The applicant claims that
the contested decision infringes
Article 4(3) of the Transparency Regulation. The applicant is of
the opinion that the reasons given by the European Commis-
sion for its refusal
to grant unrestricted access to the file
concerning Contract LIEN 97-2011, namely that unrestricted
access to the file would impair the decision-making process,
are invalid. The applicant further contends that there is public
interest in the disclosure of the documents in question. The
applicant also questions the applicability of Article 4(1)(b) of
the Transparency Regulation.

The applicant complains furthermore of the refusal to grant
unrestricted access to the file by reference to the Data Protec-
tion Regulation.

Action brought on 14 April 2005 by Flex Equipos de
Descanso, S.A. against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case T-146/05)

(2005/C 143/76)

(Language in which the application was lodged: 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 by
Flex Equipos de Descanso, established in Alcobendas, Madrid
(Spain), represented by I. Valdelomar Serrano, lawyer.

Recticel N.V. established in Sint-Lambrechts-Woluwe (Belguim)
was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8
February 2005 in case R 469/2004-2;

— remit

the case to the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market and order it to deny from registration the
Community Trade Mark Application No. 1.278.175 RENO-
FLEX for all the goods in classes 17 and 20;

— declare that the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal

Market is infringing the principle of legal certainty;

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

11.6.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/41

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 11 April 2005 by the Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del
Transporte (MINTRA) against Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

Recticel N.V.

Community trade mark
concerned:

The word mark ‘RENOFLEX’
for
goods inter alia in classes 17 and
20 (filling materials
seats,
benches for vehicles, furniture ...)
— application No 1 278 175

for

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

The applicant

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

The national
figurative marks
‘FLEX’ for goods in classes 17 and
20 respectively
beds,
mattresses, convertible furniture,
desks ...)

(rubber,

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Opposition upheld for
contested goods

all

the

(Case T-148/05)

(2005/C 143/77)

(Language of the case: Spanish)

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 Comunidad
Autónoma de Madrid and Madrid, Infraestructuras del Trans-
porte (MINTRA), having its principal place of business in
Madrid, represented by C. Fernández Vicién, D. Ortega Peciña
and J. Sabater Marotias, lawyers.

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annulment of
Division's decision

the Opposition

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law:

of

likelihood

The
confusion
between the Community trade
mark and the earlier trade marks
is evident because of the similarity
of the signs and the fact that the
goods covered by the trade marks
are partly identical, partly similar.

close

The Community trade mark bears
resemblance with the
a
earlier trade marks, due to the fact
that the word element and domi-
nant part of
trade
the
earlier
marks, FLEX,
is included in the
contested Community trade mark,
RENOFLEX. The addition of
the
word RENO does not alter the
overall impression.

The contested decision therefore
entails an infringement of Article
8(1)b of Council Regulation No
40/94.

The Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market has further
more infringed the principal of
legal certainty.

— annul the Commission's decision; and

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The present action is brought against the defendant's decision
classifying MINTRA in the general sector ‘public administra-
tions’, in accordance with the ‘European system of accounts —
ESA 1995’ provided for in Annex A to Council Regulation (EC)
No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of
national and regional accounts in the Community. (1) The ESA
1995 consists of a series of definitions, nomenclatures and
rules of accounting methodology which the Member States
apply when drawing up their national accounts and economic
statistics. That accounting system is also used for the applica-
tion of the excessive deficit procedure.

MINTRA is a public-law entity of the Comunidad de Madrid
attached to the Consejería de Transportes e Infraestructuras. It
has legal personality and its own assets and also full capacity to
act. It also has the capacity to incur autonomous debts with
regard to the Comunidad de Madrid.