Case T-325/05: Action brought on 30 August 2005 — TUI AG v OHIM
Date: 2005-10-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law, travel agency

15.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/17

Form of order sought:

— annul the Commission Decision of 1 June 2005;

— order the Commission to bear the costs.

Finally, the applicant submits that the letter of 1 June 2005
contravenes principles of public international law binding on
the Community because it entails a worldwide and thus extra-
territorial disclosure of the applicant's property rights.

(1) OJ C 179 of 10 July 2004, p. 18.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

Action brought on 30 August 2005 — TUI AG v OHIM

Following the Commission's Decision of 24 March 2004,
contested in Case T-201/04 (1) and according to which the
applicant
for certain
is required to disclose specifications
Windows protocols in order to ensure interoperability with
Windows, the Commission informed the applicant by letter of
1 June 2005 that, in its opinion, the applicant is under an obli-
gation to permit distribution to third parties — non-licensees
— in source code form of software developed by competitors
on the basis of the disclosed Windows protocol specifications
unless the software includes an invention by the applicant satis-
fying criteria of novelty and inventiveness.

The applicant contests the Commission's letter of 1 June 2005
as the applicant contends that the distribution in source code
form of the software in question would grant non-licensees
access to the applicant's trade secrets without giving the appli-
cant the possibility to ensure that they are kept confidential
through licensing terms as is the case for licensees.

The applicant is of the opinion that the letter of 1 June 2005
imposes an illegal deprivation of the applicant's property rights
and that the Commission lacked competence to impose obliga-
tions going beyond those required by the Decision of 24 March
2004 as the Commission's letter of 1 June 2005 purports to
apply this Decision.

The applicant further alleges that the letter of 1 June 2005
breaches the principle of proportionality as it goes beyond
what is necessary to remedy the abuse established by the Deci-
sion of 24 March 2004.

(Case T-325/05)

(2005/C 257/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties:

Applicant(s): TUI AG (Hannover, Germany) (represented by D.
von Schultz)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs)

Form of order sought:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM

of 25 May 2005 in Case R 183/2004-4;

— require OHIM to register the trade mark ‘Fliegen zum Taxi-
preis’ applied for under number EU 002851681 for all
services covered by the application;

— order OHIM to pay the costs of the appeal procedure and

of the present case.

Moreover the applicant claims that the test of novelty and
inventiveness set out in the letter of 1 June 2005 breaches the
principle of legal certainty as it is unclear, imprecise and very
difficult to apply meaningfully in a trade secret context.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Fliegen zum Taxi-
preis’ for services in Classes 36 and 39 — application No
2 851 681.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

C 257/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.10.2005

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application in respect
of services in Class 39.

— EUR 150 000,00 relating to the ECHO 9 PALESTINE
together with

project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/08018,
default interest running from 16 September 2004;

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94, as it is incorrect that the trade mark
applied for has no distinctive character.

Action brought on 26 August 2005 — Movimondo
ONLUS v Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-329/05)

(2005/C 257/33)

Language of the case: Italian

— EUR 52 500,00 relating to the DIPECHO INDIA
together with

project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/03005,
default interest running from 24 March 2005;

— EUR 50 865,96 relating to the ECHO LEBANON
together with

project: ECHO/TPS/210/2003/08020,
default interest running from 15 August 2005;

— EUR 119 485,70 relating to the ECHO BAJO YUNA
together with

project: ECHO/CR/BUD/2004/01006,
default interest running from 12 June 2005;

— EUR 28 500,00 payable for

project: ECHO/AGO/BUD/2004/01018,
default interest running from 13 July 2005;

the ECHO RUNDU II
together with

— EUR 70 085 relating to the ECHO SAMANA' project:
together with default

ECHO/DOM/BUD/2004/01001,
interest running from 16 May 2005;

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Parties:

The applicant's subsidiary claim is that the Court should:

Applicant: Movimondo ONLUS (Rome, Italy)
(represented by
Paolo Vitali, Giulia Verusio, Gian Michele Roberti and Ales-
sandra Franchi, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— annul the decision suspending the time-limits for payment
contained in the letter of 17 June 2005 of Director General
Antonio Cavaco, Humanitarian Aid Office, ECHO 3, Ref. D
6613, concerning the ‘injunction to pay outstanding
payments due to Movimondo’ and, consequently, order the
European Commission to pay Movimondo the
sums
referred to above;

Form of order sought:

The applicant's principal claim is that the Court should:

— declare that the European Commission (ECHO department)
has failed to perform its contractual undertakings as regards
its contractual obligations under
the Grant Agreements
concluded within the ambit of Framework Partnership Agree-
ment No 3-134 and in consequence

— order the European Commission to pay Movimondo the

following sums:

— EUR 36 500,51 relating

project: ECHO/PHL/210/2003/02003,
default interest running from 25 September 2004;

to the MAGUINDANAO
together with

— order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments:

In this action the principal claim of the applicant organisation
— an international cooperation and solidarity NGO —
pursuant to Article 238 EC, is that the European Commission
should be ordered to pay the sums due under contractual obli-
gations arising out of several Grant Agreements concluded
within the ambit of Framework Partnership Agreement No 3-
134,
in force from 1 December 2003, and concerning the
financing by the European Commission of urgent humanitarian
actions carried out in full and properly accounted for.