Case T-293/06: Action brought on 19 October 2006 — NBC Fourth Realty v OHIM — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)
Date: 2006-12-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

16.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 310/23

— Misconstruction of Articles 87 EC and 88 EC and of
Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 (2) by
reason of the mention of the claimant as a beneficiary of
the aid. The claimant submits that, by designating it as an
aid beneficiary, the Commission exceeded the limits of its
discretion inasmuch as the claimant does not belong to the
group of individuals which in fact benefited from the aid;

— Infringement of the principles of legal certainty and propor-
tionality by reason of the designation of the claimant as an
individual obligated to return the aid declared incompatible
with the common market, notwithstanding the fact that the
claimant was not a beneficiary of that aid.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 794/2004 of 21 April 2004 imple-
menting Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 laying down
detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty (OJ
2004 L 140, p. 1).

(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC
Treaty (OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Action brought on 19 October 2006 — NBC Fourth
Realty v OHIM — Regalado Pareja and Pedrol (PK MAX)

(Case T-293/06)

(2006/C 310/44)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: NBC Fourth Realty Corp. (Las Vegas, USA) (repre-
sented by: A. Woodgate, A. Smith, Solicitors)

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

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Miguel
Isaias Regalado Pareja and Bibiana Pedrol, trading as Rosell
(Alicante, Spain)

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community
Trademark PK MAX, claiming the colour navy blue for goods
and services in classes 3, 25 and 28 in Case R 397/2005-1.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
The applicant.

Mark or sign cited: The national word marks T.K. MAXX for
goods and services in class 35, the Community word mark T.K.
MAX, for goods and services in classes 3, 14, 18, 25, 28 and
35, as well as earlier non-registered national word marks of the
same denomination, used in the course of trade in Ireland, the
United Kingdom and the Netherlands.

Decision of
entirety.

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and case remitted
to the Opposition Division for the remaining grounds of oppo-
sition.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94.

The applicant claims that the Board of Appeal erred in law, by
concluding there was no likelihood of confusion between the
In particular,
earlier and the contested mark.
the applicant
submits
incorrectly interpreted the
the Board of Appeal
‘consumer’ of the protected services while it manifestly erred in
the assessment of the visual, phonetic and conceptual similari-
ties between the respective trade marks. Moreover, the Board of
Appeal allegedly failed to correctly assess the scope of protec-
tion enjoyed by the earlier mark, as a result of its reputation
and/or inherent distinctiveness. Finally, the applicant submits
the Board has incorrectly introduced additional requirements
into the provisions of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No
40/94.

Action brought on 20 October 2006 — Nordmilch v
OHIM (Vitality)

(Case T-294/06)

(2006/C 310/45)

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the contested decision of the First Board of

Appeal, of 5 July 2006, in Case R 397/2005-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
to pay the costs of this application and also the costs of the
proceedings before the Board of Appeal.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Nordmilch eG (Zeven, Germany) (represented by R.
Schneider, lawyer)

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Miguel Isaias Regalado
Pareja and Bibiana Pedrol, trading as Rosell.

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