Case T-28/06: Action brought on  24 January 2006  — RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann v OHIM
Date: 2006-04-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

8.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/33

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

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

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Commission of the European
Communities (C(2005) 3903 final) of 9 November 2005 on
the State aid which the Federal Republic of Germany has
implemented for the introduction of digital terrestrial televi-
sion (DVB-T) in Berlin-Brandenburg;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

is challenging Commission Decision C(2005)
The applicant
3903 final of 9 November 2005 on the State aid for the intro-
duction of digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Berlin-Bran-
denburg. In the contested decision the Commission stated that
the aid granted to the commercial broadcasters participating in
incompatible with the common market and
DVB-T was
ordered the Federal Republic of Germany to recover from the
beneficiaries the aid which was unlawfully made available to
them. The applicant is expressly referred to as an issuer of aid
in the contested decision.

In support of its action the applicant puts forward three pleas
in law.

First, it states that the contested decision errs in law as essential
formal requirements have been infringed. The Commission has,
in particular, infringed the obligation to state reasons as it has
not explained comprehensively why this should be regarded as
a case involving State aid.

Second, the applicant alleges infringement of Article 87 EC. On
the one hand,
it contends that there is no aid within the
meaning of Article 87(1) EC. On the other hand, it claims that
if there has in fact been aid, that would be compatible with the
common market under Article 87(3)(c) and (d).

Finally,
the
the applicant bases its action on the fact
contested decision infringes Article 86(2) EC since, in so far as
there has been aid, that would be compatible with the common
market.

that

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 17 November 2005 in Appeal No R
1179/2004-2;

— order the defendant to pay the costs incurred by the appli-

cant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

trade mark

the word mark ‘VOM
Community
concerned:
URSPRUNG HER VOLLKOMMEN’ for goods in Classes 32 and
33 — Application No 2 806 875

Decision of the Examiner: registration rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal rejected

Pleas in law: breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94, since the trade mark does not consist of
exclusively descriptive elements and is also not devoid of any
distinctive character.

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — Procter & Gamble
v OHIM

(Case T-29/06)

(2006/C 86/68)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Action brought on 24 January 2006 — RheinfelsQuellen
H. Hövelmann v OHIM

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, USA)
[represented by: G. Kuipers, lawyer]

(Case T-28/06)

(2006/C 86/67)

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

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: RheinfelsQuellen H. Hövelmann GmbH & Co. KG
(Duisburg, Germany)
(represented by W. Kellenter and A.
Lambrecht, Rechtsanwälte)

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 22 November 2005 (Case R 1071/2004-1), which
was notified to P&G by letter of 5 December 2005, in so
far as it finds that the mark does not satisfy the conditions
as laid down in Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94; and