Case T-211/06: Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v OHIM (word mark CYBERCREDIT )
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), credit, electronic commerce, trade-mark law

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/11

Action brought on 10 August 2006 — European Associa-
tion of Im- and Exporters of Birds and live Animals and
Others v Commission of the European Communities

The measures are also discriminatory inasmuch as poultry is
excluded from their scope.

(Case T-209/06)

(2006/C 249/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

(1) 2006/522/EC: Commission Decision of 25 July 2006 amending
Decisions 2005/759/EC and 2005/760/EC as regards certain protec-
tion measures in relation to highly pathogenic avian influenza and
movements of certain live birds into the Community (notified under
document number C(2006) 3303) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ
2006 L 205, p. 28).

Parties

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v
OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’)

Applicants: European Association of Im- and Exporters of Birds
and live Animals, Vereniging van Im- en Exporteurs van Vogels
en Hobbydieren, Willem Plomp, trading as Plomps Vogelhandel
and Marinus Borgstein (represented by: J. Wouters, lawyer)

(Case T-211/06)

(2006/C 249/29)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annul Commission Decision 2006/522/EC of 25 July

2006;

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS
(Euro-Information)
(represented by: A.
(Strasbourg, France)
Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants are (i) associations which promote the interests
of importers and exporters of birds and animals and (ii) impor-
ters and exporters of, inter alia, birds. They contest Commission
Decision 2006/522/EC (1).

The applicants contend that the contested decision is unneces-
sary, as the existing quarantine rules offer adequate protection.

They also submit that
the decision is in conflict with the
precautionary principle because the Commission has not based
it on the most complete possible scientific evaluation.

A complete ban on imports is also disproportionate in light of
the factual background to the decision, namely the infection of
birds from Taiwan with avian influenza.

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

Form of order sought

— annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of OHIM of 12 June 2006, Case R 66/2006-1,
which refused to register ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community
trade mark, under application No 4 114 336, in respect of
all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and
38;

— registration of ‘CYBERCREDIT’ as a Community trade mark,
under application No 4 114 336, in respect of all the goods
and services applied for.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERCREDIT’ in
respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (appli-
cation No 4 114 336)

The applicants also argue that the Commission has misused its
powers and that the real reason for the extension of the protec-
tive measures is the Commission's wish to await the outcome
of the report from the Animal Health and Welfare panel of the
European Food Safety Authority.

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

C 249/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

14.10.2006

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding
of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its
mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the
goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of
Council Regulation No 40/94.

Action brought on 8 August 2006 — American Clothing
Associates v OHIM (figurative mark — maple leaf and the
letters RW)

(Case T-215/06)

(2006/C 249/31)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Action brought on 4 August 2006 — Euro-Information v
OHIM (word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’)

(Case T-213/06)

(2006/C 249/30)

Parties

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Applicant: American Clothing Associates (Evergem, Belgium)
(represented by: P. Maeyaert and N. Clarembeaux, lawyers)

Parties

Applicant: Européenne de traitement de l'information SAS
(Euro-Information)
(represented by: A.
(Strasbourg, France)
Jacquet, J. Schouman and P. Greffe, lawyers)

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

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

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of

4 May 2006 in Case R 1463/2005-1;

Form of order sought

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

— annulment in its entirety of the decision of the First Board
of Appeal of OHIM of 24 May 2006, Case R 68/2006-1,
which refused to register ‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community
trade mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of
all the goods and services applied for in Classes 9, 36 and
38;

— registration of

‘CYBERGESTION’ as a Community trade
mark, under application No 4 114 716, in respect of all the
goods and services applied for.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERGESTION’
in respect of goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (appli-
cation No 4 114 716)

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that, contrary to the finding
of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its
mark is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the
goods and services applied for to meet the requirements of
Council Regulation No 40/94.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark consisting of a
representation of a maple leaf and the letters RW in respect of
goods and services in Classes 18, 25 and 40 (application No
2 785 368)

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant first pleads infringement of Article
7(1)(h) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and of Article 6 ter of
the Paris Convention in so far as the Board of Appeal of OHIM
failed to take into consideration the overall impression of the
mark applied for and erred in its assessment of the imitative
heraldic character of a maple leaf from which it is formed. The
applicant also claims that the Board of Appeal was wrong to
refuse to take into consideration the reputation of the trade
mark when applying an absolute ground for refusal provided
for in Article 7(1)(h) of Regulation No 40/94.