Case T-303/06: Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (Uniweb)
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), credit institution, investment company, private investment, trade-mark law

C 326/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Action brought on 27 October 2006 — Lemaître Sécurité v
Commission

127(2) EC and 157(1) EC, in that the Commission did not, in
this case, correctly evaluate the existence of a Community
interest in adopting anti-dumping measures.

(Case T-301/06)

(2006/C 326/129)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Lemaître Sécurité SAS (La Walck, France) (represented
by: D. Bollecker, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— Declare admissible the action for annulment brought by
Lemaître Sécurité SAS against the Commission Decision of
28 August 2006 terminating the anti-dumping proceeding;

— Annul the decision of 28 August 2006 terminating the anti-

dumping proceeding;

— Order the re-examination of the termination of the anti-

dumping proceeding for safety footwear;

— Monitor compliance with the judgement of the Court of
First Instance of the European Communities under Article
233 EC;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

the

in consequence of

By Decision 2006/582/EC of 28 August 2006 (1), the Commis-
sion decided to terminate
anti-dumping proceeding
concerning imports of footwear with a protective toecap origin-
ating in the People's Republic of China and India, after the main
complainant withdrew its complaint
the
Commission's letter of 5 July 2006 accepting, after an investiga-
tion it had conducted, that there had been dumping of safety
footwear but refusing to impose anti-dumping duties on the
ground that
in
imposing such duties. The applicant, a European producer of
safety footwear claims that, because of the import of footwear
from China and India, it is suffering economic and strategic loss
in the absence of measures adopted to re-establish fair competi-
tion.

the European Community had no interest

In support of its action, the applicant relies on three pleas in
law.

The first plea in law alleges a defective statement of reasons in
that, in the applicant's submission, the Commission did not set
out, clearly and unequivocally, the reasons why it refuses to
adopt anti-dumping measures.

The second plea in law alleges breach of Article 9(1) of Regu-
lation No 384/96 (2), combined with Articles 2 EC, 3(m) EC,

By its third plea in law, the applicant claims that, by expressly
accepting that there had been dumping of safety footwear whilst
refusing to adopt measures to correct
the Commission
infringed the principle of the protection of legitimate expecta-
tions.

it,

(1) OJ 2006 L 234, p. 33.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1), as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2117/2005 (OJ 2005 L 340, p. 17).

Action brought on 6 November 2006 — UniCredito
Italiano v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds
(Uniweb)

(Case T-303/06)

(2006/C 326/130)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

Parties

Applicant: UniCredito Italiano S.p.A. (Genoa, Italy) (represented
by: G. Floridia and R. Floridia, 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:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 5 September 2006, adopted in joined proceedings R
196/2005-2 and R 211/2005-2,
relating to opposition
proceedings No B490971 concerning Community trade
mark application No 2.236.164.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘UNIWEB’ (appli-
cation for registration No 2.236.164), for services in Classes 35,
36 and 42.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/61

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Union Investment Privatfonds GmbH, previously Union Invest-
ment Gesellschaft GmbH.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’
(No 991.995) and ‘UNIRAK’ (No 991.997) and German figura-
tive mark ‘UNIZINS’
to distinguish capital
(No 2.016.954),
investments, as referred to in Class 36.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld,
in so far as a likelihood of confusion is recognised ‘only as
regards services found to be similar’.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of
invalidity has been sought: The word mark ‘Mozart’ for goods in
Class 30 (Community trade mark No 21 071).

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity: Chocoladefabriken Lindt
& Sprüngli AG.

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

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

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

Pleas in law: The contested decision wrongly applied the theory
of increased protection for so-called marks in a series, developed
by the Court of First Instance in its judgment of 23 February
2006 in Case T-194/03 concerning the trade mark ‘Bainbridge’,
because the two necessary conditions are not fulfilled: (a) the
element common to the series of earlier marks must be distinc-
tive; and (b) the earlier marks must be used and understood by
the relevant public as signifying a multiplicity of products and/
or services.

Pleas in law: Infringement of the duty under Article 73 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to state the reasons on which a decision
is based, infringement by the Office of its duty under Article 74
(1) of Regulation No 40/94 to examine the facts of its own
motion, infringement of the principle of good faith and infrin-
gement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94.

(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 10 November 2006 — Reber v OHIM
(Mozart)

Action brought on 13 November 2006 — Air Products and
Chemicals v OHIM — Messer Group (FERROMIX)

(Case T-304/06)

(2006/C 326/131)

(Case T-305/06)

(2006/C 326/132)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Reber GmbH & Co. KG (Bad Reichenhall,
Germany) (represented by: O. Spuhler, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Chocoladefabriken Lindt & Sprüngli AG (Kilchberg, Switzerland)

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 8
September 2006 in appeal case R 97/2005-2;

Applicant: Air Products and Chemicals Inc.
(represented by: S. Heurung, lawyer)

(Allentown, USA)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Messer
Group GmbH (Sulzbach, Germany)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of 12 September 2006 of the Second
Board of Appeal of OHIM in joined Cases R 1270/2005-2
and R 1408/2005-2;

— reject the contested application for registration of the trade

mark ‘FERROMIX’ CTM 3 190 063 in its entirety;

— send the decision of the Court of First Instance to OHIM;

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

— order Messer Group to pay all the costs and expenses.