Case T-340/06: Action brought on 30 November 2006 — Stradivarius España v OHIM — Ricci (Stradivari 1715)
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

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

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/81

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
7 September 2006 in Case R 1024/2005-1 and, allowing
the appeal lodged against Decision No 2205/2005 of the
Opposition Division, reject Community trade mark applica-
tion No 2.269.256 (figurative mark Stradivari 1715) and
order the applicant for a Community trade mark to pay the
costs of both sets of proceedings;

— order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred

by the applicant in the present action;

— if necessary, order the intervener to bear her own costs and
to pay those incurred by the applicant in these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Cristina Ricci.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘Stradivari 1715’
(application for registration No 2.269.256)
for products in
classes 14, 16 and 18.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark ‘Stradivarius’, for
in classes 14 and 16 (No 1.246.164) and 18
products
(No 506.469).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition dismissed.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community Trade Mark.

— annul the contested decision;

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GARUM’ for
goods in Class 29 (application No 3501939)

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 (1) in that, contrary to the finding by the Board
of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, its mark is not
descriptive in relation to the goods designated and having
regard to the relevant public.

(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 1 December 2006 — Angiotech
Pharmaceuticals v OHIM (VASCULAR WRAP)

(Case T-342/06)

(2006/C 326/165)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 1 December 2006 — Compagnie
générale de Diététique v OHIM (GARUM)

(Case T-341/06)

(2006/C 326/164)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie générale de Diététique SAS (Caen, France)
(represented by: J.-J. Evrard and T. de Haan, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: Angiotech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Vancouver, Canada)
(represented by: T. Clark, Barrister)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul decision R 751/2006-2 of

the Second Board of
Appeal, dated 20 September 2006, and remit the application
to the Office of Harmonisation in the Internal Market to
allow it to proceed; or

— in the alternative,

if the Court finds that the application
should only be allowed to proceed in relation to some of
the goods the subject of the application, it should annul the
decision of the Second Board of Appeal in relation to those
goods only and remit the application to proceed before the
Office in accordance with that finding;

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— order that the Office pay the applicant's costs.