Case T-204/06: Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding (milko ΔΕΛΤΑ)
Date: 2006-09-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cocoa, milk, trade-mark law

16.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/51

Action brought on 1 August 2006 — Eurostrategies v
Commission

Parliament, Council and Commission documents. In support of
its application, the applicant puts forward two pleas in law.

(Case T-203/06)

(2006/C 224/106)

Language of the case: English

First, the applicant suggests that by refusing disclosure of the
requested documents without stating reasons for such refusal,
the Commission has infringed Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No
1049/2001.

Secondly, the applicant submits that the contested decision
infringes the duty to state reasons which is required by Article
235 EC and therefore, claims, it is invalid.

Parties

Applicant: Eurostrategies SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: S. Crosby, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision of 28 July 2006
refusing access to the listed documents below concerning
the award procedure for project EuropeAid/113676/D/SV/
PL, entitled ‘Phare-Technical assistance for JHA projects,
2003/S 159-145155 (PL0103.08)’, financed by the Country
operational programme, PL0103-Justice and Home Affairs
2001:

Action brought on 3 August 2006 — Delta Protypos
Viomichania Galaktos v OHIM — Kraft Foods Schweiz
Holding (milko ∆ΕΛΤΑ)

(Case T-204/06)

(2006/C 224/107)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

— ‘Evaluation Report’ of

the Implementing Agency of

7 January 2004;

Parties

— all the documents relating to the proposal of the Imple-
menting Agency of 7 January 2004 to award the
contract to Eurostrategies;

— letter from the EC-Delegation in Warsaw to the Imple-

menting Agency of 13 January 2004;

— ‘Revised Evaluation Report’ of 15 January 2004;

— internal file note of the EC-Delegation in Warsaw sent

on 27 January 2004;

— EC-Delegation letter to the Implementing Agency of

27 January 2004;

— ‘Negotiation Report’ of 10 February 2004; and

— letter of the EC-Delegation to the Implementing Agency

of 12 February 2004;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, under Articles 230 and 231 EC, seeks annul-
ment of the European Commission's Decision of 28 July 2006
rejecting his request for access to certain documents under
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 on public access to European

Applicant: Delta Protypos Viomichania Galaktos AE (Tavros,
Greece) (represented by: P. Kanellopoulos, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kraft
Foods Schweiz Holding AG (Zürich, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision rendered by the Second Board
of Appeal of the OHIM in its ruling No R0540/2005-2
dated June 8, 2006;

— dismiss the opposition No B 562 423 brought by Kraft
Foods Schweiz Holding AG against the registration of the
Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ∆EΛTA with design’ No
2 474 674;

— order that the Community Trade mark ‘MILKO ∆EΛTA with

design’ No 2 474 674 of the applicant be accepted;

— order the OHIM to pay the costs.

C 224/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

16.9.2006

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘milko
∆ΕΛΤΑ’ for goods in class 30 (milk with cocoa) — application
No 2 474 674

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Kraft Foods Schweiz Holding AG

Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national
figurative marks and word marks ‘MILKA’ for goods in classes
5, 29, 30 and 32

Decision of
entirety

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the obvious and large differences of the two
marks are sufficient to exclude any likelihood of confusion.
According to the applicant, the two conflicting trade marks
create overall a very different visual, phonetic and conceptual
impression, especially when taking the second word ‘∆EΛTA’
into consideration.

Action brought on 8 August 2006 — Quinn Barlo and
Others v Commission

(Case T-208/06)

(2006/C 224/108)

Language of the case: English

Parties

— In main order, annul the decision insofar as it holds that
the applicants have infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53
EEA Agreement (annulment of Articles 1 and 2 as they
relate to the applicants);

— in subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision insofar

as it relates to the applicants;

— in further subsidiary order, annul Article 2 of the decision
insofar as it imposes a fine on the applicants of EUR 9
million and to reduce the fine in line with the arguments of
this application;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek the partial annulment of the Commission's
Decision C(2006) 2098 final of 31 May 2006 in Case COMP/F/
38.645 — Methacrylates, by which the Commission found that
the applicants had infringed Article 81 EC and Article 53 of
the Agreement on the European Economic Area by partici-
pating in a cartel which consisted of discussing prices, agreeing,
implementing and monitoring price agreements either in form
of price increases, or at least stabilisation of existing price
levels, discussing the passing on of additional service costs to
customers, exchange of commercially important and confiden-
tial market and/or company relevant information and partici-
pating in regular meetings and other contacts to facilitate the
infringement.

In support of their application, the applicants invoke two pleas
in law.

Firstly, the applicants submit that the contested decision is erro-
neous as it does not establish to the requisite standard of proof
that the applicants participated in a single and common anti-
competitive scheme and in a continuous infringement. Further-
more, the role of the applicant's representatives at four specific
meetings is assessed incorrectly and, apart from the applicants
presence at these four meetings, the contested decision contains
no evidence that the applicants have engaged in any conduct
that is characterised as unlawful in the decision.

Secondly,
the applicants invoke an infringement of Article
23(3) of Regulation No 1/2003 (1) due to an incorrect assess-
ment of the duration of the alleged infringement, an incorrect
assessment of the gravity of the alleged infringement and an
incorrect assessment of the mitigating circumstances.

Applicants: Quinn Barlo Ltd (County Cavan,
Ireland), Quinn
Plastics NV (Geel, Belgium) and Quinn Plastics GmbH (Mainz,
Germany)
(represented by: W. Blau, F. Wijckmans and F.
Tuytschaever, lawyers)

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December 2002 on the
implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles
81 and 82 of the Treaty (OJ 2003 L 1, p. 1).

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities