Case T-245/05: Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Date: 2005-09-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), hand tool, trade-mark law

C 217/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.9.2005

Action brought on 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal
Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc against the
Commission of the European Communities

The applicants moreover submit that the Commission erred in
refusing to grant partial access to the requested documents
under Article 4(6) of the Regulation and that the Commission
failed to provide sufficient reasoning in accordance with Article
253 EC.

(Case T-233/05)

(2005/C 217/100)

(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 23 June 2005 by Nomura Principal
Investment Plc and Nomura International Plc, established in
London (United Kingdom), represented by C.-D. Ehlermann, F.
Louis, A. Vallery and G. Axel Gutermuth, lawyers.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Finally, the applicants are of the opinion that the exceptions in
third indent, and Article 4(3),
Article 4(2),
second sub-
paragraph, of
the Regulation should be set aside and that
access to the documents should be granted for the benefit of
the overriding public interest in the protection of the integrity
of the European Union's State aid and enlargement policies.

(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).

— annul the Commission Decision D(2005) 3507 of 13 April

2005 in its entirety;

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker
Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission has, in the contested decision, confirmed its
refusal to grant the applicants access to a copy of the non-
confidential version of all documents collected during the
proceedings and investigations leading to the adoption of the
Commission's decision of 14 July 2004 in State Aid case No.
CZ 46/2003 — Czech Republic — Investicní a postovní banka,
a.s. (IPB)/Ceskoslovenská obchodní banka, a.s. (CSOB).

The applicants submit that the Commission wrongly applied
the exception in Article 4(2),
third indent, of Regulation
1049/2001 (1) to all the documents in question and that the
Commission, amongst other things, failed to carry out an indi-
vidual assessment of the content of the documents.

(Case T-245/05)

(2005/C 217/101)

(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 4 July
2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in
Townson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

With regard to the documents originating from the Czech
authorities and the Commission's internal documents, the appli-
cants claim that the Commission misapplied the exceptions laid
down in Article 4(3), second subparagraph, and Article 4(5) of
the Regulation.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag, established in Stockholm (Sweden),
was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

3.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 217/47

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law:

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

the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 723/2004-1);

— declare opposition proceedings B499 004 inadmissible;

— order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the
course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne
by the OHIM.

that

have

claims

applicant

the
The
opposition
been
should
declared inadmissible as it did not
the
identify
earlier marks and signs relied on,
in violation of Rule 18(1) of Regu-
lation No. 2868/1995 (1).

sufficiently

clearly

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark, OJ L 303, 15/12/1995, p. 1

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 4 July 2005 by The Black & Decker
Corporation against the Office for Harmonisation in the
Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Applicant
munity trade mark:

for

Com-

The applicant

(Case T-246/05)

(2005/C 217/102)

Community trade mark
concerned:

Coloured figurative mark in black
and yellow, in the form of a tool
for goods in Class 7 (manually
operated portable electric power
tools etc.)

(Language in which the application was lodged: English)

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

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag

Trade mark or
cited in opposition:

sign

Non-registered trade marks and
signs, used in the course of trade
in all Member States for power
tools

Decision of the Opposi-
tion Division:

Rejects opposition as inadmissible

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 July
2005 by The Black & Decker Corporation, established in
Towson, Maryland (USA), represented by P. Harris, Solicitor.

Atlas Copco Aktiebolag established in Stockholm (Sweden),
was also a party to the proceedings before the Board of
Appeal.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

the OHIM of 19 April 2005 (Case R 730/2004-1);

— declare opposition proceedings B498 717 inadmissible;

Decision of
of Appeal:

the Board

Annuls the contested decision and
remits the case to the Opposition
Division for further prosecution

— order that the costs occasioned by the applicant in the
course of the present proceedings and its appeal be borne
by the OHIM.