Case T-131/07: Action brought on 24 April 2007 — Mohr & Sohn v Commission
Date: 2007-07-07
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), carriage of goods, inland waterway fleet, inland waterway transport, transport regulations

7.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155/25

Pleas in law and main arguments

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Applicant for a Community trade mark: RENTRAK Corp.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark PPT (Services for
the distribution of video-cassettes on the basis of shared revenue
or payment for use; rental of videos and DVDs; rental of video-
recorders and DVD players; distribution of videotapes; on-line
rental of videos, DVDs, video-recorders and DVD players by
means of the world wide information net, Class 41)

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Portuguese national trade mark
No 330 375, presenting the verbal element ‘PPTV’
(services
relating to ‘Education; providing of
training; entertainment;
sporting and cultural activities’ within Class 41).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upholding of the opposition
and rejection of the application for registration of a Community
trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the opposition

Pleas in law:

Similarity of services: the Board of Appeal's interpretation to the
effect that the services relating to the trade mark at issue, being
distribution services only, are not directed at the same consu-
mers, so that they have no connection whatsoever with the
services provided by the applicant, is too restrictive.

Graphic similarity and likelihood of confusion: The three first
letters of each of the two distinctive signs are exactly the same.
Neither of the trade marks has any immediate meaning for
Portuguese consumers, so that they will be taken to be fanciful
signs and therefore to be original.

The likelihood of confusion includes the risk of association.

Even if Portuguese consumers did succeed in distinguishing the
marks, it is not inconceivable that they would ascribe to them
the same origin or believe that
there were commercial,
economic or organisational relations between the proprietor
undertakings, which might constitute unfair competition even if
that were not the intention of the applicant for registration of
the trade mark at issue.

Form of order sought

— Annul the defendant's decision of 28 February 2007 and
order the European Commission to grant the applicant an
exemption for the crane vessel ‘Niclas’, in accordance with
Article 4(6) of Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of
29 March 1999 on a Community-fleet capacity policy to
promote inland waterway transport;

— Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant challenges the decision of the Directorate-General
for Energy and Transport of the Commission (2007) D/200972
of 28 February 2007 in respect of the application which it
made pursuant to Article 4(6) of Regulation (EC) No 718/
1999 (1) for an exemption for the crane vessel
‘Niclas’. The
applicant applied for that specialised vessel to be exempted from
the application of the ‘old-for-new’ rule. In the contested deci-
sion the defendant decided not to grant the relevant exemption
for the vessel ‘Niclas’.

In support of its action the applicant claims, in particular, that
the crane vessel ‘Niclas’ is not a vessel which is subject to Regu-
lation No 718/1999. It submits, in that regard, that the ship
concerned is not in possession of a certificate of entitlement to
operate on the Rhine, which is however a requirement for the
transportation of goods on the European waterways.
legal
According to the applicant,
is no
different from storage vessels under Article 2(2)(f) of Regulation
No 718/1999 or from hopper vessels and floating construction
plants within the meaning of Article 2(2)(g) of that regulation.

the crane vessel

‘Niclas’

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on a Com-
munity-fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport.

Action brought on 2 May 2007 — Portela — Comércio de
artigos ortopédicos e hospitalares v Commission

Action brought on 24 April 2007 — Mohr & Sohn v
Commission

(Case T-131/07)

(2007/C 155/50)

Language of the case: German

Parties

(Case T-137/07)

(2007/C 155/51)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Paul Mohr & Sohn, Baggerei und Schiffahrt (Nieder-
walluf
(represented by: F. von Waldstein,
lawyer)

(Rhg), Germany)

Applicant: Portela — Comércio de artigos ortopédicos e hospita-
(represented by: C. Mourato,
lares, Lda.
lawyer)

(Queluz, Portugal)

Defendant: the Commission of the European Communities