Case T-169/06: Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Charlott SARL v OHIM — Charlot (figurative mark Charlott France Entre Luxe et Tradition )
Date: 2006-09-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, trade mark, trade-mark law

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/31

Furthermore, the applicant submits that the Commission has
infringed Article 87(3)(a) and (c) EC and Article 88 EC, Regu-
lation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) and the Guidelines on national
regional aid (3).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Charlott SARL

Lastly, the applicant complains of manifest errors of assessment
and misuse of powers on the part of the defendant.

trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Charlott
Community
France Entre Luxe et Tradition’ for goods in Class 25 — Appli-
cation No 001853274

(1) OJ 1998 C 107, p. 7.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty.

(3) OJ 1998 C 74, p. 9, amended by OJ 2000 C 258, p. 5.

Action brought on 26 June 2006 — Charlott SARL v
OHIM — Charlot (figurative mark ‘Charlott France Entre
Luxe et Tradition’)

(Case T-169/06)

(2006/C 212/56)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Charlott SARL (Chapanost, France) (represented by:
L. Conrad, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Charlot — Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros
SA (Lisbon, Portugal)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Charlot –Conferecções para Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros
SA

Mark or
‘Charlot’ for goods in Class 25

sign cited in opposition: National

figurative mark

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Decision of the Opposition Divi-
sion annulled.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 and of Article 22(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95
on the grounds that, according to the applicant, the opposing
party has not proven genuine use of its mark during the five
preceding years and has not furnished proof of the extent of
the use allegedly made of that mark.

Action brought on 29 June 2006 — Alrosa v Commission

(Case T-170/06)

(2006/C 212/57)

Language of the case: English

Forms of order sought

Parties

— annul the decision of 24 April 2006 of the Second Board

of Appeal of OHIM (Case R 223/2005-2);

Applicant: Alrosa Company Ltd. (Mirny, Russia) (represented by:
R. Subiotto, S. Mobley, K. Jones, Solicitors)

— rule that

the company Charlot — Conferecções para
Homens, Artigos de Lã o Outros SA does not fulfil the obli-
gations laid down in Article 43(2) of Regulation (EC) No
40/94;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

— order OHIM to proceed with registration of

the mark

lodged by Charlott SARL;

Form of order sought

— order OHIM or any unsuccessful party to pay the costs of
the present proceedings, especially the recoverable costs
under Article 91(b) of the Rules of Procedure of this Court
of 2 May 1991.

— Annul the decision in its entirety;

— order the Commission to pay Alrosa's legal and other costs

and expenses in relation to this matter.