Case T-226/06: Action brought on 25 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM (MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)
Date: 2006-10-14
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cartography, software, trade-mark law

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 249/15

Appeal brought on 23 August 2006 by the European
Parliament against the order of the European Union Civil
Service Tribunal made on 13 July 2006 in Case F-102/05
Ole Eistrup v European Parliament

Action brought on 25 August 2006 — PTV v OHIM
(MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company)

(Case T-226/06)

(2006/C 249/36)

Language of the case: German

(Case T-223/06 P)

(2006/C 249/35)

Language of the case: Danish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Parliament
sented by H. von Hertzen and L. Knudsen, Agents)

(Strasbourg, France)

(repre-

Other party to the appeal proceedings: Ole Eistrup

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

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 the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 16 June
2006 (Case R 1175/2005-1);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Form of order sought by the appellant

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant submits that the Court should:

trade mark

figurative mark
Community
concerned:
‘MAP&GUIDE The Mapware Company’ for goods and services
in Classes 9, 16 and 42.

The

— Set aside the order of the European Union Civil Service

Tribunal;

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection in part of the application for
registration.

— Itself give a ruling in the case by upholding the appellant's

preliminary objection;

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

— Dismiss the action brought by Ole Eistrup;

— Give a ruling as to costs in accordance with the relevant

rules.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of its appeal the European Parliament submits that
the European Union Civil Service Tribunal infringed the first
subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the Rules of Procedure of the
Court of First Instance by not dismissing the case, despite the
fact that the application did not bear the signature of the appli-
cant's lawyer but rather a facsimile stamp reproducing the
lawyer's signature.

The European Parliament also submits that the Civil Service
Tribunal set aside the principle of legal certainty by making
application of the first subparagraph of Article 43(1) of the
Rules of
there was
Procedure dependent on whether
a disproportionate failure to guarantee access to the courts. It is
thus impossible to predict whether it will be possible to
examine a case on its merits.

Pleas in law: The mark for which registration is sought
is
distinctive 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)

Action brought on 25 August 2006 — RSA Security
Ireland v Commission

(Case T-227/06)

(2006/C 249/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: RSA Security Ireland Ltd (Shannon, Ireland) (repre-
sented by: B. Conway, Barrister and S. Daly, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities