Case T-136/07: Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Colgate-Palmolive v OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (VISIBLE WHITE)
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/39

— misuse of powers and manifest error of assessment on the

part of the Commission;

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: CMS
Hasche Sigle (Cologne, Germany)

It is noted in that respect that, for the purpose of attaining
the objective pursued by Regulation No 2777/75,
the
Commission ought to have adopted exceptional measures to
support the Italian market in poultrymeat, by far the most
affected avicultural sector in Italy. By contrast, despite the
repeated request put forward by the applicant, the Commis-
sion refused to do so, merely granting support measures in
favour of the egg-laying sector, the least affected in Italy by
restrictive measures and, essentially, the only one affected in
the Commission clearly
the Netherlands.
intended to allocate the majority of the available resources
to Netherlands producers,
reducing to a minimum the
indemnity granted to Italian producers;

In so doing,

Form of order sought

— The decision of

the Fourth Board of Appeal dated 15

February 2007 shall be annulled;

— the Court shall confirm the decision of the Cancellation
Division and declare that the Community trade mark No
802 793 ‘VISIBLE WHITE’ remains registered;

— the applicant receives an award of costs in respect of the
request for a declaration of invalidity, a reversal of the award
of the costs made in the Board's decision, and an award of
costs in respect of this application.

— misinterpretation and infringement of Article 14 of Regu-

lation No 2777/75 and manifest error of assessment.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In the applicant's view, contrary to the view of the defen-
dant, Article 14 of the regulation at issue does not apply
only when the imbalances on the market are caused by the
fact that it is impossible for producers which are in an area
under surveillance and protection to have access to the
market outside that area.
In fact, the Commission could
adopt exceptional support measures to restabilise the market
affected by restrictions on free circulation which result from
the application of measures intended to prevent the spread
of animal disease, irrespective of whether those restrictions
relate to products entering or those exiting a particular area;

— lastly, also the breach of the principles of sound administra-

tion, impartiality, fairness and transparency.

(1) OJ L 282 of 1.11.1975, p. 77.

Action brought on 30 April 2007 — Colgate-Palmolive v
OHIM — CMS Hasche Sigle (VISIBLE WHITE)

(Case T-136/07)

(2007/C 140/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Registered Community trade mark subject of
declaration of
goods in class 3 — Community trade mark No 802 793

invalidity: The word mark ‘VISIBLE WHITE’

the application for a
for

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: CMS Hasche Sigle

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the request for a
declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation
Division's decision and declaration of invalidity of the Com-
munity trade mark

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal wrongly consid-
ered both the element ‘VISIBLE’ and the element ‘WHITE’ as
descriptive in relation to ‘toothpaste’ as well as ‘mouthwash’ and
considered the combination as a whole descriptive and devoid
of distinctive character.

Action brought on 4 May 2007 — General Technic-Otis v
Commission

(Case T-141/07)

(2007/C 140/65)

Language of the case: French

Applicant: Colgate-Palmolive Co.
(New York, United States)
(represented by: M. Zintler, H. Harmeling and K.-U. Plath,
lawyers)

Parties

Applicant: General Technic-Otis Sàrl (Howald, Grand Duchy of
Luxembourg) (represented by: M. Nobusch, lawyer)

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities