Case T-310/06: Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Republic of Hungary v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2006-12-30
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Hungary, action for annulment (EU), common organisation of markets, intervention agency, maize, quality control of agricultural products, weights and measures

C 326/64

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.12.2006

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Werner & Mertz GmbH

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark BUD for goods in
Class 32 — application No 24 711

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative mark ‘BÚFALO’ for
goods in class 3

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

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 43 of Council Regulation
No 40/94 and Rule 22 of Commission Regulation No 2868/95
as the Board of Appeal should not have taken into consideration
the proof of use filed for the first time before it and outside the
time limit set forth by the Opposition Division.

Action brought on 14 November 2006 — Budějovický
Budvar v OHIM — Anheuser-Busch (BUD)

(Case T-309/06)

(2006/C 326/136)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Right to the protected appellation
of origin BUD for beer

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition rejected

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law:
Infringement of Article 62(1) of Regulation No
40/94 (1) and Article 20 of the implementing regulation No
2868/95 (2) in that the Board of Appeal does not have jurisdic-
tion to rule on the validity of the appellation of origin relied on
by the applicant in its opposition. The applicant also submits
that the sign BUD constitutes an appellation of origin protected
in France and Austria. It also relies on incorrect application of
Article 8(4) of Regulation No 40/94 in that the appellation of
origin BUD in its view does indeed constitute a sign used in the
course of trade.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2868/95 of 13 December 1995
implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community
trade mark (OJ 1995 L 303, p. 1).

Applicant: Budějovický Budvar, národní podnik (České Budějo-
vice, Czech Republic) (represented by F. Fajgenbaum, lawyer)

Action brought on 17 November 2006 — Republic of
Hungary v Commission of the European Communities

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:
Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

(Case T-310/06)

(2006/C 326/137)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Form of order sought

— set aside the contested decision R 305/2005-2 of 1
September 2006 of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM;

Parties

— reject application No 24 711 for registration of the word

mark BUD for goods in Class 32;

— transmit the decision of the Court of First Instance of the

European Communities to OHIM;

— order Anheuser-Busch to pay all the costs.

Applicant(s): Republic of Hungary (represented by: J. Fazekas)

Defendant(s): Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Anheuser-Busch, Inc.

— Assignment of the case to the Grand Chamber of the Court
of First Instance pursuant to Articles 14(1) and 51(1) of its
Rules of Procedure.

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/65

— Annulment of

the following provisions of Commission
Regulation (EC) No 1572/2006 of 18 October 2006
amending Regulation (EC) No 824/2000 establishing proce-
dures for the taking-over of cereals by intervention agencies
and laying down methods of analysis for determining the
quality (1) of cereals (‘the Regulation’):

— The Commission has failed to fulfil

its obligation under
Article 253 EC to state the reasons on which legal acts are
based.

— The Commission has infringed the internal rules of

the
Management Committee for Cereals in not respecting the
time-limit laid down by those rules.

— Article 1(1) insofar as it refers to maize;

— Article 1(3), amending Article 9(b) of Regulation No

824/2000, insofar as it refers to maize;

— the value relating to the specific weight required for
maize appearing in line E of the table given in point 1
of the annex, and

— Table III in point 2 of the annex insofar as it refers to

maize.

— An order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities pay the costs.

(1) OJ L 290, 20.10.2006, p. 29.

Action brought on 7 November 2006– FMC Chemical and
Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA

(Case T-311/06)

(2006/C 326/138)

Language of the case: English

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the partial annulment of Article 1 of Regu-
lation No 1572/2006 and the annex thereto because it
considers that they are unlawful.

Parties

It relies on the following pleas in support of its application:

— The Commission has breached the legitimate expectations of
the producers by introducing during the financial year a
requirement relating to the specific weight of maize, and the
principles of legal certainty and proportionality by allowing
an inordinately short preparatory period between the date of
publication and the date of entry into force and by failing to
take account of the need for gradual adjustment.

Applicants: FMC Chemical SPRL (Brussels, Belgium) Arysta Life-
sciences SAS (Nogueres, France) (represented by: C. Mereu, K.
Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

— The Commission did not have the authority to lay down the

requirement relating to the specific weight of maize.

— Declare the present application admissible and well founded;

— In the event that it is considered that the Commission was
empowered to lay down that requirement,
the applicant
submits that the defendant has exceeded its powers, given
that it significantly altered the intervention regime for maize
in practice under the pretext of amending the qualitative
parameters for intervention.

— Even if it is considered that the Commission was empowered
to lay down the requirement relating to the specific weight
of maize, that institution made a manifest error of assess-
ment,
in that, by establishing a criterion for the average
quality of maize, it did not take account of the fact that the
maize produced in the Community is used mainly for
animal fodder.

— annul

the EFSA's Conclusion Report,

titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of
the active substance Carbofuran’;

— order the EFSA and/or the European Commission by way of
incidental request in accordance with Articles 63 and 64 of
the Court's Rules of Procedure, to produce the proposal
regarding the (non) inclusion of Carbofuran in Annex I to
Directive 91/414/EEC it intends to present to the Standing
Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health for a vote
at its 22/24 November 2006 meeting, or any other meeting;

— declare the illegality and inapplicability vis-à-vis the appli-
cants and the review of their Carbofuran dossiers of Article
20 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1490/2002;