Case T-270/06: Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Lego Juris v OHIM — Mega Brands (Lego brick)
Date: 2006-12-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), toy industry, trade-mark law

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/55

Action brought on 26 September 2006 — Commission v
TH Parkner

(Case T-266/06)

(2006/C 294/112)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Claimant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Wilderspin, Agent, and R. van der Hout, lawyer)

Defendant: TH Parkner GmbH (Mühlhausen, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Order the defendant to pay to the claimant EUR 64 078,58
plus 6.04 % interest with effect from 1 August 2001 to
31 December 2002 and 8.04 % interest with effect from
1 January 2003;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The claimant entered into a contract with the defendant
the
concerning the granting of an advance payment
construction of a central heating plant with a thermo-electric
converter (Stirling Motor) in industrial premises in Thuringia
within the framework of the promotion of energy technology
in Europe (THERMIE programme).

for

The Commission terminated this
contract by letter of
4 December 1995 as the defendant had not used the amount
paid to it in a manner consistent with the contract. The present
action seeks to effect recovery from the defendant of the final
outstanding instalment plus default interest.

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— annul, pursuant to Articles 230 EC and 231 EC, the imposi-
tion of a maximum amount of DR 668 783 057 under
Article 1 of Commission Decision E(2006) 1580 final of 26
April 2006 in respect of compensation to which the appli-
cant is lawfully entitled for the period 11 to 14 September
2001;

— annul Article 2 of the contested decision, according to
is not

which the compensation paid to the applicant
compatible with the common market;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The application is directed against Commission Decision
E(2006) 1580 final of 26 April 2006, concerning a State aid
scheme C-39/2003 (ex NN 119/02) put into effect by Greece
in favour of
the airline industry to compensate for losses
suffered between 11 and 14 September 2001.

the

that

the Commission,

applicant maintains

First,
in
concluding that the financial aid granted to make good the
damage which arose after 14 September 2001 is not directly
linked to the closure of
the United States
because of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and
consequently constitutes State aid that is incompatible with the
common market, clearly committed an error of assessment of
the factual circumstances and thus infringed Article 87(2)(b)
EC.

the airspace of

In conclusion, the applicant alleges that the complete lack of
reasons for the rejection of
the compensation in question
constitutes infringement of an essential procedural requirement
which renders the decision invalid.

Action brought on 22 September 2006 — Olympiaki
Aeroporia Ipiresies v Commission

(Case T-268/06)

(2006/C 294/113)

Language of the case: Greek

Action brought on 25 September 2006 — Lego Juris v
OHIM — Mega Brands (Lego brick)

(Case T-270/06)

(2006/C 294/114)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Olympiaki Aeroporia
(Olympic
Airways Services S.A.) (represented by: P. Anestis, T. Soames,
G. Goeteyn, S. Mavrogenis, M. Pinto de Lemos Fermiano Rato,
lawyers,)

Ipiresies A.E.

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant: Lego Juris A/S (Billund, Denmark) (represented by: V.
von Bomhard, A. Renck and T. Dolde, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mega
Brands Inc. (Montreal, Canada)

C 294/56

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

2.12.2006

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Grand Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
and Designs) of 10 July 2006 in case No

Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks
R 856/2004-G; and

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

penalty payment
imposed on Microsoft Corporation by
Decision C(2005)4420 final and amending that decision as
regards the amount;

— in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the periodic

penalty payment imposed; and

defendant.

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of the application for a
invalidity: The figurative mark ‘LEGO brick’ for
declaration of
products in class 28 claiming the ‘colour red’ — Community
Trade mark No 107 029

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: Mega Brands Inc.

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of
the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant advances a single plea in law in
support of its application. Precisely, the applicant contends that
the contested decision violates Article 7(1)(e)(ii) CTMR of
Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in so far as it allegedly
misinterprets the said provision as well as its rationale and, in
addition, to the extent that it applies it to something that is not
the subject of the trade mark protection granted by the registra-
tion at issue.

Action brought on 2 October 2006 — Microsoft v
Commission

(Case T-271/06)

(2006/C 294/115)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Microsoft
J-F.
Inc (Seattle, USA)
Bellis, G. Berrisch, lawyers, I. S. Forrester, QC and D. W. Hull,
Solicitor )

(represented by:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2006)3143 final of
12 July 2006 fixing the definitive amount of the periodic

Pleas in law and main arguments

By a decision of 10 November 2005 (the ‘Article 24(1) deci-
sion’) adopted pursuant to article 24(1) of Regulation 1/2003,
the Commission imposed a periodic penalty payment in the
event the applicant failed to fulfil
its obligation to provide
Interoperability Information pursuant to Decision C(2004)900
final of 24 March 2004 (the ‘2004 decision’). The contested
Decision C(2006)3143 of 12 July 2006 fixed the definitive
amount of the periodic penalty payment for the period of 16
December 2005 through 20 June 2006 at 280.5 million EUR.

By means of its application, the applicant seeks annulment of
the contested decision on the basis of the following grounds:

Firstly, the applicant claims that the Commission violated its
duty to give clear information and precise instructions as to
what it required for compliance with the 2004 decision. The
applicant deemed such information and instructions to be
necessary allowing it to opt for the expected means to satisfy
the obligation to provide Interoperability Information. In this
respect,
the Commission
omitted to include the relevant instructions in the 2004 deci-
sion as well as in the Article 24(1) decision itself, whether prior
to adoption of the latter, nor until several months had elapsed
after such decision was taken.

further claims that

the applicant

required under

the 2004 decision. Precisely,

Secondly, the applicant submits that the Commission failed to
the applicant did not
prove to the requisite standard that
comply with its obligation to provide Interoperability Informa-
tion as
the
Commission allegedly failed to put forward clear and convin-
cing reasoning supported by sufficiently precise and coherent
evidence that (1) the technical documentation that the appli-
cant made available on 15 December 2005 did not comply
with the requirements of the 2004 decision; and (2) none of
the subsequent steps that the applicant undertook from 16
December 2005 to June 2006 were sufficient to ensure compli-
ance. Specifically and according to the applicant, the Commis-
sion thus failed to objectively evaluate the evidence before it
and applied the wrong standard in evaluating the technical
documentation.

The applicant advances as a third ground of annulment the fact
that the Commission denied it the right to be heard before
adopting the contested decision, the reference period for the
imposition of the periodic penalty payment being 16 December
2005 through 20 June 2006 while the Statement of Objections
was issued on 21 December 2005, not covering a single day of
the reference period.