Case T-131/06: Action brought on  4 May 2006  — Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA SONIA RYKIEL)
Date: 2006-07-15
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing, cosmetic product, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, leather, optical industry, textile product, trade-mark law

C 165/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

15.7.2006

Action brought on 4 May 2006 — Sonia Rykiel Création
et Diffusion de Modèles v OHIM — Cuadrado (SONIA
SONIA RYKIEL)

Action brought on 12 May 2006 — Gorostiaga Atxalanda-
baso v Parliament

(Case T-131/06)

(2006/C 165/55)

(Case T-132/06)

(2006/C 165/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Sonia Rykiel Création et Diffusion de Modèles (Paris,
France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cuadrado
S.A. (Paterna, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office of Harmonization in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 30 January 2006 in Case R 329/
2005-1;

— Order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

defendant and, if appropriate, the intervener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Sonia Rykiel Création et
Diffusion de Modèles.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SONIA
SONIA RYKIEL’ for goods in classes 3, 9, 14, 18 and 25 (Com-
munity trade mark application No 1035625)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Cuadrado, S.A.

Mark or sign cited: The national trade marks ‘SONIA’ for goods
in classes 24 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition
with respect to the goods covered in class 25.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the decision of
the Opposition Division and rejection of the mark applied for,
for all goods covered by it in class 25.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(3) of Regulation No
40/94 and of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94.

Parties

Applicant: Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (Saint Pierre-d'Irube,
France) (represented by: D. Rouget, lawyer)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the contested decision of the Secretary-General of 22

March 2006;

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and pay those of

the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

On 22 December 2005, in an action brought by the applicant,
a former Member of the European Parliament, the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities gave a judgment
(Case T-146/04 Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso v Parliament (1))
in which it annulled, on the ground of procedural irregularity,
the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parlia-
ment of 24 February 2004 concerning the recovery of sums
paid to the applicant as parliamentary expenses and allowances
in so far as it provided that the sum owed by the applicant
would be recovered by offsetting. The remainder of the applica-
tion was dismissed. Following that judgment, the Secretary-
General of the Parliament adopted a new decision on 22 March
2006 for recovery of the sums paid to the applicant by offset-
ting. That is the contested decision.

In support of his action for annulment, the applicant submits
first an argument relating to infringement of res judicata in so
far as the procedure for adopting the contested decision is not,
in his opinion, in accordance with the Court of First Instance's
judgment of 22 December 2005. The second argument relates
to alleged infringement of the Rules governing the payment of
expenses and allowances to Members of the European Parlia-
ment, in particular Article 27(3) and (4) thereof. Furthermore,
the applicant submits that there is force majeure in that it is
impossible for him to gain access to his accounts and the
authorities of one of the Member States refuse to return to him
a sum attached during other proceedings. The applicant also
submits infringement of essential procedural requirements in so