Case T-126/06: Action brought on  24 April 2006  — Italian Republic v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, Italy, action for annulment (EU), operational programme, regional aid, structural expenditure

C 143/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Action brought on 27 April 2006 — MIP METRO v OHIM
— MetroRED Telecom (MetroRED)

further element ‘RED’ lacks any distinctiveness and will thus be
disregarded by the consumer.

(Case T-124/06)

(2006/C 143/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP METRO Group Intellectual Property GmbH &
(represented by: R. Kaase,
Co KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
MetroRED Telecom Group Ltd (Hamilton, Bermuda)

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 16
February 2006 as far as the appeal has been dismissed on
the grounds that it does not comply with Art 8(1)(b) of
Regulation No 40/94;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: MetroRED Telecom
Group Ltd.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘MetroRED’
for services in classes 35, 38 and 42 — application No 2 189
512

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceed-
ings: The applicant

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘METRO’ for
goods and services in classes 1 to 36 and 38 to 42

Decision of
rejected

the Opposition Division: Opposition partially

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially dismissed

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation
No 40/94 as there is a likelihood of confusion since the mark
‘MetroRED’ is dominated by the element ‘Metro’ which is iden-
tical to the opposition mark. According to the applicant, the

Action brought on 24 April 2006 — Italian Republic v
Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-126/06)

(2006/C 143/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: Paolo Gentili, Avvo-
cato dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul Memorandum No 0147 (doc. No 1) of 13.02.2006
for
the European Commission, Directorate-General
of
Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus,
Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands —
concerning payments made by the Commission which
differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP
Campania (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 007);

— annul Memorandum No 01778 (doc. No 2) of 21.02.2006)
of
for
the European Commission, Directorate-General
Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus,
Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands —
concerning payments made by the Commission which
differ from the amount requested. Ref. SPD Toscana Ob.2
(No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 001);

— annul Memorandum No 01780 (doc. No 3) of 21.02.2006
of
for
the European Commission, Directorate-General
Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands —
Greece, Hungary,
concerning payments made by the Commission which
differ from the amount requested. Ref. SPD Ob. 2 ‘Lazio’
2000-2006 (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 009);

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/35

— annul Memorandum No 02114 (doc. No 4) of 03.03.2006
of
for
the European Commission, Directorate-General
Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands —
Greece, Hungary,
concerning payments made by the Commission which
differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme SPD
Lombardia (No CCI 2000 IT 16 2 DO 014);

— annul Memorandum No 02983 (doc. No 5) of 31.03.2006
of
for
the European Commission, Directorate-General
Regional Policy — Programmes and projects in Cyprus,
Greece, Hungary,
Italy, Malta and the Netherlands —
concerning payments made by the Commission which

differ from the amount requested. Ref. Programme PEP
Sardegna 2000-2006 (No CCI 1999 IT 16 1 PO 010);

— annul all related and prior measures;

— order the Commission of the European Communities to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those relied
on in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission.