Case T-398/06: Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Unicredito Italiano SpA v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds (1 Unicredit)
Date: 2007-02-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), banking, investment company, private investment, trade-mark law

24.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/33

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments are similar to those put
forward in Case T-345/04 Italian Republic v Commission (1).

(1) OJ C 262 of 23.10.04, p. 55.

Action brought on 16 December 2006 — DOW AgroS-
ciences v EFSA

(Case T-397/06)

(2007/C 42/58)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 21 December 2006 — Commission v
TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz

Applicant: DOW AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom)
(represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Parties

(Case T-396/06)

(2007/C 42/57)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: M. Šimerdová, R.Bierwagen (lawyer))

Defendant: TGA Technische Gebäudeausrüstung Chemnitz
GmbH

Form of order sought

— order

the

defendant

to

reimburse

the

EUR 32,440.80 plus 4 % interest with effect
30 November 1999;

applicant
from

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant concluded an agreement on Community activities
in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 — 1998) (1), in which
it was agreed that the Court of First Instance would have juris-
diction over disputes connected with this agreement. The
subject of the project was the construction and commissioning,
on a trial basis, of a leather drying plant.

The Commission terminated this agreement by letter of
18 February 1999, on the ground that no proper final report
was submitted to it. The applicant submits, in this connection,
that the statements of accounts presented to it by the defendant
subsequently were only partially approved because a number of
documents were missing. The remaining amount has been
demanded by the applicant on several occasions and is the
subject of the present action.

Defendant: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Form of order sought

— Order the annulment of EFSA Conclusion titled ‘Conclusion
regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the
active substance Haloxyfop-R’;

— order the defendant to compensate the applicant for the
damages incurred as a result of the contested measure, and
in the meantime, to hold at this stage by interlocutory state-
ment that the defendant is obliged to compensate the appli-
cant for the damages they incurred and to reserve the fixing
of
the amount of compensation either by agreement
between the parties or by the Court in the absence of such
an agreement;

— order the defendant to pay all the costs and expenses in

these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicant
are similar to those relied on in Case T-311/06 FMC Chemical
and Arysta Lifesciences v EFSA.

Action brought on 15 December 2006 — Unicredito
Italiano SpA v OHIM — Union Investment Privatfonds
(1 Unicredit)

(Case T-398/06)

(2007/C 42/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: Italian

(1) Council Decision 94/806/EC of 23 November 1994 adopting a
specific programme for research and technological development,
including demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to
1998) (OJ 1998 L 334, p. 87).

Parties

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

C 42/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.2.2007

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

Market in appeal case R 308/2005-4 in relation to Com-
munity trade mark application No 2 843 514 ‘GIROPAY’;

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

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs of the proceedings.

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘GIROPAY’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 36-38 and 42 (Application No
2 843 514).

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Unicredito Italiano SpA

Decision of the Examiner: Partial rejection of the application.

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘1 Unicredit’,
registration application No 2.055.069 for goods and services in
Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42.

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: German word marks ‘UNIFONDS’
(No 881.995) 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: to allow the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: to dismiss the action.

Pleas in law: Misapplication of the theory of the extended protec-
tion of ‘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 27 December 2006 — giropay v OHIM
(GIROPAY)

(Case T-399/06)

(2007/C 42/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

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

Pleas in law: The mark applied for does not present any descrip-
tive indications for the purposes of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1). In addition, the mark applied for is particu-
larly capable of being perceived by the relevant public as a
distinctive sign.

(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 28 December 2006 — Brosmann Foot-
wear (HK) and Others v Council

(Case T-401/06)

(2007/C 42/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Brosmann Footwear (HK) Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong),
Seasonable Footwear (Zhong Shan) Ltd (Banfu, China), Lung Pao
Footwear (Guangzhou) Ltd (Guangzhou, China), Risen Footwear
(HK) Co. Ltd (Kowloon, Hong Kong) (represented by: L. Ruess-
mann, A. Willems, lawyers)

Applicant: Giropay GmbH (Frankfurt am Main, Germany) (repre-
sented by: K. Gründig-Schnelle, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006 to the extent
it imposes anti-dumping duties on exports by the applicants;

— annul the decision of 26 October 2006 of the Fourth Board
of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal

— order the Council to pay the costs.