Case T-95/06: Action brought on  21 March 2006  — Federaction de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)
Date: 2006-06-03
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Community Plant Variety Office, action for annulment (EU), admissibility, judicial proceedings, plant variety right

3.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/43

Action brought on 23 March 2006 — Mülhens v OHIM

Decision of the Board of Appeal: dismissal of the appeal

(Case T-93/06)

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 8(5) of Regulation 40/94.

(2006/C 131/80)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 21 March 2006 — Federaction de
Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comunidad Valenciana v Com-
munity Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Parties

Applicant: Mülhens GmbH & Co. KG (Cologne, Germany)
(represented by: T. Schulte-Beckhausen, lawyer)

(Case T-95/06)

(2006/C 131/81)

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

Language of the case: Spanish

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: S.A. Spa
Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa (Spa, Belgium)

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the second Board of Appeal of the

defendant of 11 January 2006 (Case No 2746/2004);

— order the defendant to bear the costs.

Applicant: Federación de Cooperativas Agrarias de la Comu-
nidad Valenciana (Valencia, Spain)
(represented by S. Roig
Girbes, R. Ortega Bueno and M. Delgado Echevarría, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO)

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Mülhens GmbH &
Co. KG

— Annul the Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Com-

munity Plant Variety Office of 8 November 2005;

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark 'MINERAL SPA'
for goods in class 3 (soaps, perfumeries, essential oils, prepara-
tions for body and beauty care, preparations for the hair, denti-
frices)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: S.A. Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de SPA

— order the Community Plant Variety Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

for Community plant variety rights:

Jean de Maistre,
Applicant
following the transfer of the variety at issue, SARL Nador Cott
Protection (Application No 1995/0726).

Mark or sign cited: several trade marks containing the word
'SPA' and, in particular, the Benelux word trade mark 'SPA' for
goods in class 32

Community plant variety right sought by: Nadorcott

Decision of the Opposition Division: rejection of the application
for registration of the mark

Decision of the CPVO: Community plant variety right granted
(Decision No 14111).

C 131/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

3.6.2006

Appeal before the Board of Appeal lodged by: the applicant.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Application inadmissible (Case A
001/2005).

Pleas in law: Infringement of Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 (1)
the principle of sound administration consisting in
and of
failure to apply Article 49 of that regulation; error consisting in
the dismissal of the appeal without justification.

Pleas in law: The mark applied for has the necessary distinctive
character for the purposes of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1239/95 of 31 May 1995 estab-
lishing implementing rules for the application of Council Regulation
(EC) No 2100/94 as regards proceedings before the Community
Plant Variety Office (OJ 1995 L 121, p. 37).

Action brought on 28 March 2006 — Fédération nationale
du Crédit agricole v Commission

(Case T-98/06)

(2006/C 131/83)

Language of the case: French

Action brought on 29 March 2006 — Neoperl v OHIM

(Case T-97/06)

Parties

(2006/C 131/82)

Applicant: Fédération nationale du Crédit agricole (Paris, France)
(represented by: N. Lenoir and P.-A. Jeanneney, lawyers)

Language of the case: German

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Applicant: Neoperl GmbH (Müllheim, Germany) (represented by
H. Börjes-Pestalozza, lawyer)

— annul

the decision given by the Commission on 21
December 2005 in Case N 531/2005 France — Measures
relating to the creation and operation of Banque Postale;

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

— order the Commission to pay the entire costs of

the

proceeding.

Form of order sought

— annul contested Decision R 0612/2005-4 and order the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to publish
application No 3 636 206 for the purposes of its registra-
tion as a Community trade mark.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Three dimensional mark ‘Sani-
tärschlauch’ — shape of a tube — for goods in Classes 11 and
17 — Application No 3 636 206.

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 25 January 2005 the French authorities informed the
Commission of their decision to transfer the banking and insur-
ance activities of La Poste to a subsidiary (Banque Postale), initi-
ally wholly owned by La Poste. On 21 July 2001, the applicant
in the present action submitted a formal complaint to the
Commission under Article 20(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No
659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Article 93 (now Article 88) of the EC Treaty (1),
alleging that
the State aid granted to Banque Postale was
incompatible with the common market and requesting that the
Commission initiate formal investigation proceedings.

In a decision of 21 December 2005, the Commission stated
that the transferring of financial activities to a subsidiary does
not confer an economic advantage on Banque Postale and that
the measures relating to the creation and operation of this
subsidiary do not constitute State aid within the meaning of
Article 87(1) EC. That is the decision against which the present
action is brought.