Case T-70/07: Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Cantieri Navali Termoli v Commission
Date: 2007-04-28
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, Italy, State aid, action for annulment (EU), control of State aid, shipbuilding

C 95/52

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

28.4.2007

Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza
Technopol v OHIM — (‘150’)

Form of order sought

(Case T-66/07)

(2007/C 95/104)

— set aside the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) of 20 December 2006 (Case R
1135/2006-2)

Language of the case: Polish

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Parties

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol, Sp. z o. o. (Często-
chowa, Republic of Poland)
(represented by: D. Rzążewska,
lawyer)

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘FUN’ for goods and
services in Class 12 (Application No 4 509 808).

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application.

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

Decision of
refusal of the application.

the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal and

Form of order sought

— set

aside

in its

entirety

the decision delivered on
21 December 2006 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1035/2006-4;

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

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘150’ for goods in
Class 16

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: incorrect application of the provisions of Article 7
(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade
mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designa-
tion ‘150’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descrip-
tive nor devoid of distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

— infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/
94 (1) by reason of the incorrect application of the absolute
ground for refusal regarding the indication of the character-
istics of the goods to words forming part of the general
vocabulary which are not directly descriptive,

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 by
accepting that the mark was devoid of any descriptive char-
acter by reason only of
the improper application of
Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation No 40/94, and

— infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94 on
the ground that the mark applied for was sufficiently distinc-
tive.

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

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

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994

L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — Cantieri Navali
Termoli v Commission

(Case T-70/07)

(2007/C 95/106)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Ford Motor v OHIM
(FUN)

Parties

(Case T-67/07)

(2007/C 95/105)

Applicant: Cantieri Navali Termoli SpA (Termoli, Italy) (repre-
sented by: B. Daniela Mammarella, lawyer)

Language of the case: German

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant(s): Ford Motor Company (Dearborn, Michigan, USA)
(represented by R. Ingerl, lawyer)

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision;

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

— order the defendant to pay all costs and fees incurred in the

proceedings.

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/53

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 9 March 2007 — Icuna.Com v Parlia-
ment

the Shipbuilding Regulation (2),

The present application is directed against the Commission's
decision of 4 July 2006 on State aid which Italy is planning to
implement for Cantieri Navali Termoli S.p.A (No C 48/2004 (ex
No 595/2003)) (1), by which it classed as State aid not compa-
tible with the common market the operating aid, provided for
in Article 3 of
Italy
planned to give the applicant in respect of Ship C.180 (ex
the ship's
C.173), and forbade the 10-month extension of
the delays
delivery limit, on the ground that the causes of
invoked by the applicant
the events of
11 September 2001 in New York, the need for technical modifi-
cations, the occurrence of natural disasters) failed to satisfy the
second subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the Shipbuilding Regu-
lation.

(the impact of

that

In support of its claims, the applicant alleges:

(a) Procedural defect, in the form of an insufficient statement of

reasons in respect of the following findings:

— that the events of 11 September had no causal link with
the present case: by contrast with the cruise ship ship-
building sector,
the shipbuilding sector in which the
applicant is active — that is to say, the petro-chemical
tanker shipbuilding sector — was found to have suffered
no disruption on account of those events;

— that it has not been shown that the natural disasters
is
which struck the territory in which the applicant
active played a causal role;

(Case T-71/07)

(2007/C 95/107)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Icuna.Com SCRL (Braine-le-Château, Belgium) (repre-
sented by J. Windey and P. de Bandt, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the European Parliament of 31 January
2007, annulling the tender procedure EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/
2006/0003, in so far as concerns lot 2;

— declare that the Community is non-contractually liable and
order the European Parliament to pay compensation to the
the
applicant for all the damage suffered as a result of
contested decision and to appoint an expert to assess that
damage;

— in any event, order the European Parliament to pay the costs

of the present proceedings.

— the findings concerning the need to introduce technical

Pleas in law and main arguments

modifications to the construction.

(b) Manifest error in the assessment of the facts adduced by
way of evidence, confirmed by the Italian State, of
the
including the
the programme of works,
disruption of
unwarranted distinction drawn between chemical markets
and other shipping sectors for the purposes of applying the
Community legislation in question, as well as the biased
interpretation of
from the
Clarkson Research Institute — moreover, an interpretation
in the abstract and out of context — to which decisive
importance was attributed, without practical checks being
carried out and substantiated by documentary evidence.

the November 2003 report

(c) Misuse of powers, given the failure to determine, on the
basis of facts and by reference to the characteristics and
circumstances of the individual case, whether the requested
extension of only 10 months was likely to affect trade
between Member States, and thus to assess the compatibility
of the operating aid with the competition rules of the Com-
munity.

(1) OJ L 283, 28.12.2006, p. 53.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 establishing new rules on aid

to shipbuilding (OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1).

procedure

EP/DGINFO/WEBTV/2006/0003,

By decision of 1 December 2006, the European Parliament
rejected the applicant's tender submitted in the context of the
tender
lot 2:
programme contents, with a view to the creation of a European
Parliament web television channel (1) and entered into a contract
with another tenderer. That decision was the subject of an
action for annulment brought by the applicant in the Court of
First Instance on 19 December 2006 (2). In the context of inter-
locutory proceedings, the President of the Court of First Instance
ordered, with interim effect, and in so far as the Parliament had
already concluded the contract in accordance with the decision
of 1 December 2006, the suspension of the operation of the
contract. Following the hearing held in the interlocutory
proceedings, the Parliament adopted the contested decision on
31 January 2007, by which it annulled the tender procedure at
issue in so far as that procedure concerns lot 2.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.
By the first plea it is alleged that the contested decision was
unlawful, owing to the lack of competence of the author of the
act and the infringement of Article 101 of the Financial Regu-
lation (3). The applicant claims that no provision of Community
law authorises the contracting authority to annul the award of a
procurement contract after the signature of the contract with
the successful tenderer. Moreover,
it asserts that even if the
defendant were competent to adopt the contested decision on
the basis of Article 101 of the Financial Regulation, that provi-
sion does not authorise it to proceed to the partial annulment
of the tender procedure.