Case T-32/08: Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki v Commission
Date: 2007-01-18
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Internet site, action for annulment (EU), award of contract, computer systems, invitation to tender, services contract

C 92/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.4.2008

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

Action brought on 18 January 2008 — Evropaïki Dynamiki
v Commission

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quantum
Corporation Ltd (Lefkosia, Cyprus)

Form of order sought

— The decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17 October

2007 in Case R 1271/2006-1 be annulled;

— appeal number R 1271/2006-1 be allowed;

— opposition number B 936 288 be permitted to stand and

proceedings to continue;

— OHIM pay Quantum's costs both in these proceedings and

in the appeal proceedings before the OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

(Case T-32/08)

(2008/C 92/66)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant:
Systimata
Evropaïki Dynamiki — Proigmena
Tilepikoinonion Pliroforikis kai Tilematikis AE (Athens, Greece)
(represented by: N. Korogiannakis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Quantum Corporation
Limited

Form of order sought

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade
the sign ‘Q’ containing word elements
mark composed of
in
‘QUANTUM CORPORATION’
classes 35, 36 and 42 — Application No 3 773 355

and services

for goods

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

Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks
‘QUANTUM’ for goods and services in class 9 and the Com-
munity figurative mark ‘Q’ for goods and services in classes 9
and 42

— Annul the decision of the Commission to evaluate the appli-
cant's bid as not successful and award the contract to the
successful contractor;

— order

the Commission to pay the applicant's damages
suffered on account of the tendering procedure in question
for an amount of EUR 65 565;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's legal and other
costs and expenses incurred in connection with this applica-
tion, even if the current application is rejected.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Declared the opposition inad-
missible

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision is
based on incorrect facts as it fails to take into account the exis-
tence and nature of the opposition guidelines. The applicant
further submits that the contested decision breached its legiti-
mate expectation that the practice outlined in the opposition
guidelines would be factually correct, since other potential
opponents could also have relied on them. Further, the applicant
contends that it had a legitimate expectation that the guidelines
would be followed and that it would receive a ‘standard letter
208’ requiring it to file a translation of its writ in order to
the applicant
comply with the formal requirements. Finally,
claims that OHIM must incur liability pursuant to Article 114
of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in respect of its failure to
comply with its obligations to provide up-to-date and accurate
guidelines.

its claims the applicant argues that,

In support of
in the
framework of the tendering procedure ENV.A.1/SER/2007/0032
for the ‘Market analysis in view of developing a new approach
Europeans” website’
for
(OJ 2007/S 83-100898) the European Commission failed to
comply with its obligations foreseen in the Financial Regu-
lation (1), its Implementing Rules and Directive 2004/18/EC (2).

“Environment

for Young

the

The applicant moreover submits that the contracting authority
committed several manifest errors of assessment which resulted
in the rejection of its bid. Furthermore, the contracting authority
allegedly infringed its obligation to state reasons for its decision
and, in particular, to inform the applicant on the relative merits
of the successful tenderer.

The applicant requests, hence, that the decision of the European
Commission to reject its bid and to award the contract to the
successful
is
ordered to pay all legal expenses related to the proceedings even
in case the application is rejected. In the alternative, since the

tenderer be annulled and that

the defendant

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/33

contract will most probably have been fully executed by the
time the Court reaches its decision or if it is no longer possible
to annul the decision, the applicant requests monetary compen-
sation (damages) in accordance with Articles 235 and 288 EC.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and
rejected the application for registration.

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

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002
on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the
European Communities (OJ L 248, p. 1).

(2) Directive 2004/18/EC of

the
Council of 31 March 2004 on the coordination of procedures for
the award of public works contracts, public supply contracts and
public service contracts (OJ L 134, p. 114).

the European Parliament and of

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) given that there is no likelihood of confusion
between the signs in conflict.

(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 24 January 2008 — Codorniu Napa v
OHIM — Bodegas Ontañón (ARTESA NAPA VALLEY)

Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Walton v
Commission

(Case T-35/08)

(2008/C 92/67)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

(Case T-37/08)

(2008/C 92/68)

Language of the case: English

Applicant: Codorniu Napa,
America)
Aguilà, lawyers)

(California, United States of
(represented by: X. Fàbrega Sabaté and M. Curell

Inc.

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Bodegas Ontañón, S.A.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM) of
20 November 2007 in Case R 747/2006-4, and

— order OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark applied for: Figurative mark ‘ARTESA
NAPA VALLEY’
(application
No 3.079.159)

in Class

goods

for

33

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Bodegas Ontañón, S.A.

Parties

Applicant: Robert Walton (Oxford, United Kingdom) (represented
by: D. Beard, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— A declaration that the decision of the Commission to set-off
the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against
the sums due to
Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case
T-144/02 was unlawful; or

— a declaration that the decision of the Commission to set off
the sums due to
the sum of EUR 36 551,58 against
Mr Walton pursuant to the judgment of the Court in Case
T-144/02 was unlawful in part; or

— a declaration that the sum of EUR 36 551,58 set off by the
Commission against the sums due to Mr Walton pursuant to
the judgment of the Court in Case T-144/02 should be
recalculated so as to remove the Commission's claim for
interest; and/or

— an order

(a)

that

the established amount

receivable of
the established
receivable of EUR 13 815,16 plus interest be

EUR 13 104,14 plus interest; and/or (b)
amount
cancelled; and

Mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Community figura-
tive trade mark No 2.050.623 ‘ARTESO’ for goods in Classes 33
and 35, Spanish word mark No 844.194 ‘LA ARTESA’
for
goods in Class 33.

— an order that the Commission pay the appellant's costs; and

— such further or other measures as the Court may consider

just and equitable.