Case T-127/05: Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 — Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council (Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 — Fisheries — Fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States which acceded in 2004 — Persons directly and individually concerned — Inadmissibility)
Date: 2007-03-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Council of the European Union, Estonia, action for annulment (EU), fishing agreement, fishing industry, fishing regulations, transitional period (EU)

C 56/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.3.2007

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

1. There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

1. Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for
Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
(OHIM) of 8 November 2004 (Case R 159/2004-1);

2. Orders OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by

the applicant;

3. Orders the intervener to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 82, 2.4.2005.

2. The applicant is ordered to bear its own costs and to pay those

incurred by the defendant.

3. The intervener is to bear its own costs.

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 6 December 2006
— movingpeople.net International BV v OHIM — Schäfer
(movingpeople.net)

(Case T-92/05) (1)

(Community trade mark — Community figurative trade mark
movingpeople.net — Opposition of
the
national word mark MOVING PEOPLE — Partial refusal of
registration — Applicant's acquisition of the earlier trade
mark — No need to adjudicate)

the proprietor of

(2007/C 56/55)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Order of the Court of First Instance of 9 January 2007 —
Lootus Teine Osaühing v Council

(Case T-127/05) (1)

(Action for annulment — Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 and
Regulation (EC) No 2270/2004 — Fisheries — Fishing
opportunities for deep sea species for the new Member States
which acceded in 2004 — Persons directly and individually
concerned — Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 56/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Lootus Teine Osaühing (Lootus)
(represented by: T. Sild and K. Martin, Lawyers)

(Tartu, Estonia)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: A.
de Gregorio Merino, F. Ruggeri Laderchi and A. Westerhof
Lörefflerova, Agents)

Applicant: movingpeople.net International BV (Helmond, Nether-
(represented by: G. van Roeyen and T. Berendsen,
lands)
lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant: Republic of Estonia (repre-
sented by: L. Uibo and H. Prieß, Agents)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen, Agent)

Intervener in support of the defendant: Commission of the Euro-
pean Communities (represented by K. Banks, Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM
intervening before the Court of First Instance: Thomas Schäfer (Groß
Schlamin, Schashagen, Germany) (represented by: D. Rohmeyer,
lawyer)

Re:

of Appeal

Action for annulment brought against the decision of the First
of OHIM of 20 December 2004
Board
(Case R 410/2004-1),
relating to opposition proceedings
between Thomas Schäfer and movingpeople.net International
BV

Re:

Action for annulment in part of, first, the Annex to Council
Regulation (EC) No 2269/2004 of 20 December 2004
amending Regulations (EC) Nos 2340/2002 and 2347/2002 as
concerns fishing opportunities for deep sea species for the new
Member States which acceded in 2004 (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 1)
and, second, Part 2 of
the Annex to Council Regulation
(EC) No 2270/2004 of 22 December 2004 fixing for 2005 and
2006 the fishing opportunities for Community fishing vessels
for certain deep-sea fish stocks (OJ 2004 L 396, p. 4), in so far
as those provisions concern the fishing opportunities allocated
to Estonia.

10.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/29

Operative part of the order

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

2. The applicant shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by

the Council.

Action brought on 8 December 2006 — Rath v OHIM —
Sanorell Pharma (Immunocell)

(Case T-368/06)

(2007/C 56/58)

3. The Commission shall bear its own costs.

Language in which the application was lodged: German

(1) OJ C 115, 14.5.2005.

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 January 2007 —
SPM v Commission

(Case T-104/06) (1)

(Common organisation of the markets — Bananas — Scheme
for the import of bananas originating in ACP countries to the
European Union — Regulation (EC) No 219/2006 — Action
for annulment — Locus standi — Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 56/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (Douala,
Cameroon) (represented by: B. Doré, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (repre-
sented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart and L. Visaggio, Agents)

Re:

Action for
annulment of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 219/2006 of 8 February 2006 opening and providing for
the administration of the tariff quota for bananas falling under
CN code 0803 00 19 originating in ACP countries for the
period 1 March to 31 December 2006 (OJ 2006 L 38, p. 22)

Parties

Applicant: Matthias Rath (Cape Town, South Africa) (represented
by: S. Ziegler, C. Kleiner and F. Dehn, 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:
Sanorell Pharma GmbH & Co.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
(Trade

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) (OHIM) of 3 October 2006;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Immunocell’ for
goods and services in Classes 5 , 16 and 41 (Registration
No 1 065 903).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Sanorell Pharma GmbH & Co.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The word mark ‘IMMUNORELL’
for goods in Class 5 (Community trade mark No 808 014), the
opposition being brought only against
the registration in
Class 5.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition granted, partial
rejection of the application.

Operative part of the order

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

1. The action is dismissed as inadmissible;

2. The Société des plantations de Mbanga SA (SPM) shall bear its

own costs and pay those of the Commission.

Pleas in law: The contested decision infringes Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) since there is no likelihood of
confusion between the opposing marks.

(1) OJ C 131, 3.6.2006.

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

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