Case T-128/07: Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Suez v OHIM (Delivering the essentials of life)
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, France, action for annulment (EU), chemical industry, trade-mark law

C 140/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.6.2007

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Grounds of appeal: In making its decision, the Opposition Divi-
sion failed to take account of applicant's claim for annulment of
the marks relied on in opposition. In the submission of the
applícant, there is no further obstacle under Article 8(1)(b) of
Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) to the registration being sought by
the opposing marks being
the applicant
annulled.

in the event of

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

Community Trade Mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

Appeal brought on 20 April 2007 by Bligny against the
order of the Civil Service Tribunal made on 15 February
2007 in Case F-142/06, Bligny v Commission

(Case T-127/07 P)

(2007/C 140/57)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Francesco Bligny (Tassin-la-Demi-Lune, France) (repre-
sented by P. Lebel-Nourissat, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Form of order sought by the appellant

— declare that the Civil Service Tribunal

(CST) erred in its
assessment of the application form as regards the obligation
on the candidate to attach documentary evidence of his citi-
zenship;

— declare that the CST did not deal with the applicant's pleas
as to failure to take account of the principles of the protec-
tion of legitimate expectations and of proper administration
incumbent upon the selection board of competition EPSO
AD/26/05;

— accordingly, annul the order of the CST of 15 February

2007 in Case F-142/06;

— making a new decision, annul the decision of the selection
board of competition EPSO AD/26/05 of 7 December 2006,
and that of 23 December 2006 refusing the applicant
admission to the competition and thus to correction of his
written test, and hold that the application form published
on 15 May 2006 for candidates of the competition on the
EPSO website was unlawful;

— in the alternative, refer the case back to the CST for the
purposes of a decision on the case in question and order the
Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In its appeal, the applicant requests annulment of the order of
the Civil Service Tribunal dismissing as manifestly unfounded
his action by which he requested the annulment of the decision
of the selection board of the competition refusing to correct his
written test on the ground that his application did not include
documentary evidence of his citizenship.

In support of his appeal, the applicant submits that the CST
fundamentally misread the facts which had been submitted to it,
thus misinterpreting the application form to be filled in by the
candidate,
the form.
leading to an error of assessment of
Further, he relies on a plea relating to inadequate statement of
reasons in respect of the contested order, as the CST did not
deal with all the pleas and forms of order sought put forward
by the applicant at first instance.

Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Suez v OHIM (Deli-
vering the essentials of life)

(Case T-128/07)

(2007/C 140/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Suez SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Combeau,
lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annulment of the contested decision;

— OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Delivering the
essentials of life’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 9, 11, 16,
35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (Application No 4 102 497)

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/35

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 (1), in that, contrary to the finding of the Board
of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the mark for
which registration is sought has no strictly laudatory connota-
tion and does not describe a characteristic or quality of the
goods or services which it serves to designate.

exemptions fall within the nature and logic of the domestic
taxation system.

Secondly, the applicant claims that the Commission failed to
carry out a proper competition analysis in support of its conclu-
sion that the Irish measure can be assumed to affect intra-com-
munity trade and to distort or threaten to distort competition.

(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 17 April 2007 — Ireland v Commission

(Case T-129/07)

(2007/C 140/59)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ireland (represented by: D. O'Hagan, E. Alkin, Agents,
and P. McGarry, Barrister)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul pursuant to Article 230 of the Treaty, in whole or in
part, Commission Decision C(2007) 286 final of 7 February
2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on
for alumina production in
mineral oils used as
Gardanne,
imple-
mented by France, Ireland and Italy respectively, insofar as it
concerns the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils
used as fuel for alumina production in the Shannon region
implemented by Ireland;

in the Shannon region and in Sardinia,

fuel

— order the Commission to pay the costs of these proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision C
(2007) 286 final of 7 February 2007 by which the Commission
found that the exemptions from excise duty granted by France,
Ireland and Italy in respect of heavy fuel oils used in the produc-
tion of alumina as from 1 January 2004 constitute State aid
within the meaning of Article 87(1) EC and that a certain part
of this aid was incompatible with the common market.

In support of its application, the applicant invokes four pleas in
law.

Firstly, the applicant submits that the Commission was wrong
when it concluded that Ireland had not demonstrated that the

the applicant alleges

Thirdly,
the contested decision
infringes the principle of legal certainty in circumstances where
the Council had already authorised the specific derogation until
the end of 2006.

that

Finally, the applicant contends that the Commission erred in
law in concluding that the State aid concerned constitutes new
aid, as opposed to existing aid.

Action brought on 19 April 2007 — Aughinish Alumina v
Commission

(Case T-130/07)

(2007/C 140/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aughinish Alumina Ltd (Askeaton,
sented by: J. Handoll, C. Waterson, Solicitors)

Ireland)

(repre-

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

In the light of its submissions, AAL respectfully requests the
Court:

— to annul

the Commission decision of February 2007
concerning the exemption from excise duty on mineral oils
used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne,
in the
Shannon Region and in Sardinia insofar as it relates to AAL;

— to order the Commission to pay the costs incurred by AAL

in the current proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application the applicant requests the partial
annulment of Commission Decision C(2007)286 final of 7
February 2007 concerning the exemption from excise duty on
mineral oils used as fuel for alumina production in Gardanne, in
the Shannon Region and in Sardinia respectively implemented
by France, Ireland and Italy, insofar as it relates to Aughinish
Alumina Ltd (hereinafter ‘AAL’).