Case T-218/06: Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel (Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)
Date: 2006-09-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), medicinal product, trade-mark law

C 237/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.9.2006

Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Lucite International
and Lucite International UK v Commission

Secondly, the Commission did not give proper consideration to
the attenuating circumstances applicable to the applicants.

(Case T-216/06)

(2006/C 237/21)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Lucite

International

(Hampshire, United
Applicants:
Kingdom) and Lucite International UK Ltd (Lancashire, United
Kingdom) (represented by: R. Thompson, QC, and S. Rose, Soli-
citor)

Ltd

Action brought on 16 August 2006 — Neurim Pharmaceu-
(1991) v OHIM — Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel
ticals

(Neurim PHARMACEUTICALS)

(Case T-218/06)

(2006/C 237/22)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Article 2(d) of Decision COMP/F/38.645;

— the replacement of the fine imposed under Article 2(d) of
Decision [COMP/F/38.645] by a fine of EUR 18,268,750
or such other lower amount as the Court may consider
appropriate; and

— order the defendant to bear the costs of this application.

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 methacrylates cartel which consisted of discussing
implementing and monitoring price agree-
prices, agreeing,
ments 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 confidential market and/or company relevant information
and participating in regular meetings and other contacts to
facilitate the infringement.

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
Commission applied its guidelines on the method of setting
fines incorrectly when calculating the fine imposed on the
applicants.

First of all, the Commission failed to take account of the nature
of the applicant's involvement and the extent of their role in
undermining the cartel when setting the starting amount of the
fine.

Applicant: Neurim Pharmaceuticals (1991) Ltd (Tel Aviv, Israel)
(represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Eurim-
Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH

Forms of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade,
Marks and Designs) of 2 June 2006 — Appeal number R
74/2006-1 — in its entirety;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Neurim
PHARMACEUTICALS’ for goods in Classes 5 and 10.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Eurim-Pharm Arzneimittel GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘EURIM-PHARM’
(Community trade mark No 667 899 and national mark) and
the trade mark right for ‘Eurim-Pharm GmbH’ for goods in
Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Grant of the opposition and
refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal as inad-
missible.

30.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 237/13

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 59 of Regulation (EC) No
40/94 (1) and Rules 48, 49 and 96 of Regulation (EC) No
2868/95 (2),
infringement of Article 78 and Article 78a of
Regulation No 40/94 and infringement of the principle by
which OHIM is bound by its own decisions and the principle
of proportionality.

Pleas in law: The mark applied for does have distinctive char-
acter 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) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

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

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Com-
munity trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Action brought on 17 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM
(map&guide travelbook)

(Case T-219/06)

(2006/C 237/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Action brought on 18 August 2006 — Hipp & Co v OHMI
— Laboratorios Ordesa (BEBIMIL)

(Case T-221/06)

(2006/C 237/24)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Hipp & Co (Kommanditgesellschaft) (Sachseln, Swit-
zerland) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, lawyer)

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

Applicant: PTV Planung Transport Verkehr AG (Karlsruhe,
Germany) (represented by F. Nielsen, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Labora-
torios Ordesa S.L. (Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain)

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

Form of order sought

Forms of order sought

— set aside the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8 June
2006 (Appeal case number: R 1174/2005-1);

— Annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 2
June 2006 (Case No R571/2005-1),

— order the costs of the proceedings to be borne by the defen-

dant.

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘map&guide
travelbook’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16 and 42.

Decision of the Examiner: Partial dismissal of the application.

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The community word mark
‘BEBIMIL’ for goods in classes 5, 29, 30 and 32.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Laboratorios Ordesa S.L.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Mark or
‘BLEMIL’ for goods in classes 5 and 29, 6 and 32 respectively.

sign cited: Community and national word mark