Case T-337/06: Action brought on 28 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM –Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit Wealth Management)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/79

Action brought on 22 November 2006 — Italy v Commis-
sion

(Case T-335/06)

(2006/C 326/160)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Italian Republic (represented by: G. Aiello, Avvocato
dello Stato)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that the Commission has failed to act in that, after
being formally called upon to act, in accordance with Article
232 EC, it unlawfully omitted to adopt exceptional measures
to support the Italian market in poultrymeat, pursuant to
Article 14 of Council Regulation No 2777/75, as regards
the chicks that were destroyed for lack of battery brooder
pens in the areas affected by avian influenza and subject to
veterinary measures restricting free circulation in the period
from December 1999 to September 2003;

— order the defendant to pay all fees and costs entailed by the

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Italian Government has brought an action for failure to act
before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities
on account of the failure of the European Commission to adopt
exceptional measures to support the Italian market in poultry-
meat.

and committed an error of assessment regarding the situa-
tion of the Italian poultry market, as well as regarding the
information available to it concerning the production struc-
ture;

(3) infringement and misinterpretation of Article 14 of Regu-
lation No 2777/75 in that the unjustified refusal of the
Commission to grant exceptional measures to support the
market in respect of the day-old chicks destroyed for lack of
battery brooder pens was based on an incorrect interpreta-
tion of Article 14 of Regulation No 2777/75;

(4) breach of the principles of sound administration, imparti-

ality, fairness and transparency.

Action brought on 28 November 2006 — UniCredito
Italiano v OHIM –Union Investment Privatfonds (UniCredit
Wealth Management)

(Case T-337/06)

(2006/C 326/161)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredito Italiano SpA (Genoa, Italy)
by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, lawyers)

(represented

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

In support of its action, the Italian Government claims:

Form of order sought

(1) breach of the principle of non-discrimination between Com-
munity producers, laid down in the second subparagraph of
Article 34(2) EC, in that, after Italy had been granted excep-
tional measures in support only of
the market in eggs,
analogous measures for the market in poultrymeat were
Italian poultry producers
that
refused, with the result
suffered discrimination as compared with Dutch poultry
producers, contrary to the second subparagraph of Article
34(2) of the EC Treaty;

(2) misuse of power and manifest error of assessment on the
part of the Commission which, by refusing to adopt excep-
tional measures to support the market also in respect of the
day-old chicks destroyed for lack of battery brooder pens,
exceeded the powers conferred on it by the basic regulation
on the common organisation of the market in poultrymeat

— annulment of the contested decision

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: UniCredito Italiano

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UniCredit Wealth
Management’ (registration application No 2.330.066) for goods
and services in Classes 16, 35, 36, 41 and 42

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

C 326/80

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’
(No 991.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and figurative mark
‘UNIZINS’
for services in Class 36 (capital
investment)

(No 2.016.954)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed in part in
so far as there was held to be a likelihood of confusion as
regards capital investments

Decision of the Board of Appeal: to dismiss the action

Pleas in law: Misapplication of the theory of the extended protec-
tion of what are known as serial marks as formulated by the
Court of First Instance in Case T-194/03 Il Ponte Finanziaria v
OHIM [2006] ECR II-0000 (Bainbridge)

Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Greece v
Commission

(Case T-339/06)

(2006/C 326/162)

Language of the case: Greek

annulment or alteration of the decision in so far as the decision
relates to Greece because, in its submission, the Commission:

(a) infringed the obligation of cooperation which governs rela-
tions between it and the Member States by failing to take
account of the information which was transmitted to it by
the applicant;

(b) infringed the principle of good faith and of proper adminis-
tration, not acknowledging a clear computer error of which
it was notified in good and due time by means of the subse-
quent correction;

(c) infringed the principle of equity and of proportionality,
given that the loss of funds for Greece (EUR 1 129 015) is
out of proportion with the allegedly belated correction of
the
information originally
in the
computing
forwarded; and finally

error

(d) infringed the principle that a beneficial result should be
achieved, given that the restructuring and conversion of
vineyards (Articles 11, 13 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No
1493/1999 (1) and Articles 16 and 17 of Regulation (EC)
No 1227/2000 (2)) constitute an important measure for the
qualitative upgrading of Community vineyards and the
unjustified reduction of Greece's financial allocation preju-
dices that Community objective.

(1) OJ 1999 L 179, p. 1.
(2) OJ 2000 L 143, p. 1.

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: I. Khalkias and S.
Papaïoannou)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Stradivarius
España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)

(Case T-340/06)

(2006/C 326/163)

Form of order sought

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

— annul or alter the contested Commission decision in so far
as it concerns the financial allocation for the restructuring
in order that the
and conversion of vineyards in Greece,
correct statistical
trans-
mitted to the Commission on 22 September 2006 be taken
into account and the sums be allocated to Greece.

information which the applicant

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Hellenic Republic challenges Commission Decision C(2006)
4348 final of 4 October 2006 (OJ 2006 L 275, p. 62) fixing,
for the 2006 financial year and in respect of a certain number
of hectares, the definitive financial allocations to Member States
for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards under Regu-
lation (EC) No 1493/1999. The Hellenic Republic seeks the

Applicant: Stradivarius España (Arteixo, La Coruña, Spain) (repre-
sented by: G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Cristina Ricci