Case T-126/07: Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Allos Walter Lang v OHIM — Kokoriko (Coco Rico)
Date: 2007-06-23
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), food industry, trade-mark law

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/33

Action brought on 16 May 2007 — Scientific and Techno-
logical Committee and Others v Potocnik and Others,
Members of the Commission

problems raised in the complaints addressed to them. The appli-
cants submit that such inactivity infringes the legal order of the
European Union and conflicts with the obligations of a member
of the Commission.

(Case T-125/07)

(2007/C 140/55)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicants: Scientific and Technological Committee of AGH
University of Science and Technology and Others (Cracow,
Poland) (represented by A. Żuraniewski, lawyer)

Defendants: J. Potocnik, S. Dimas and A. Piebalgs, Members of
the Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— declare that J. Potocnik, S. Dimas and A. Piebalgs, Members
of the Commission of the European Communities, by not
taking immediate action in defence of the life of the popula-
tion of the EU from the time of receipt of the three docu-
ments reporting the risks connected with the technique of
storing CO2 in geological strata, committed the offence of
failure to act, by which they caused an existing and conti-
nuing state of danger to the life of the population of the EU
and danger of an ecological catastrophe;

— indicate the need for carrying out the proposed studies;

— indicate the need for financing in full the studies which are
not of a commercial nature but protect the safety of the life
of the population of the EU;

— indicate the need for suspension in the EU of further proce-
the

into geological strata until

dures for
injecting CO2
completion of the proposed studies.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants seek a declaration of failure to act by members
of the European Commission who were informed by the appli-
cants of the dangers to human health and the natural environ-
ment deriving from the containerless depositing of carbon
dioxide in geological strata but did not take the appropriate
measures with the aim of preventing the negative effects of the
application of such techniques. The applicants claim that after
being called on to take action and to carry out the studies
proposed by the applicants on the effects of the storage of
carbon dioxide in surface layers of land the defendant members
of the Commission did not take any position on the issue of the

Action brought on 20 April 2007 — Allos Walter Lang v
OHIM — Kokoriko (Coco Rico)

(Case T-126/07)

(2007/C 140/56)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Allos Walter Lang (Mariendrebber, Germany) (repre-
sented by: H. Heldt, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Other party in the proceedings before the OHIM: KOKORIKO Ltda.

Form of order sought

— Suspension of proceedings until final determination on the
actions for annulment pending before the OHIM in cases
2069 C and 2070 C;

— Annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division on
31 May 2006 reference number B 696684 and the decision
of the Second Board of Appeal of 16 February 2007, refer-
ence number R 1047/2006-2 and reference of the matter
back to the Opposition Division for reconsideration.

— OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark in question: The word mark ‘Coco Rico’ for
goods in Class 30 (Application No 2 949 899).

Proprietor of the trade marks relied upon in opposition: KOKORIKO
Ltda.

Trade marks relied upon in opposition: The work mark ‘KOKORIKO’
(Community Trade Mark No 101 386) for goods and services in
Classes 29, 30 and 42, and the figurative mark ‘KOKORIKO’
(Community Trade Mark No 101 626) for goods and services in
Classes 29, 30 and 42.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld and appli-
cation for registration dismissed.

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