Case T-186/07: Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Ashoka v OHIM (DREAM IT, DO IT!)
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), education, entrepreneurship, exchange of information, provision of services, trade-mark law

C 170/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘ANEW ALTER-
NATIVE’ for goods in class 3 — application No 4 357 919

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 and of the principle of equal treatment.

Action brought on 29 May 2007 — Calvin Klein Trademark
Trust v OHIM — Zafra Marroquineros (CK CREACIONES
KENNYA)

(Case T-185/07)

(2007/C 170/66)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Calvin Klein Trademark Trust
(Delaware, United
States) (represented by: T. Andrade Boué, M.I. Lehmann Novo
and A. Hernández Lehmann, lawyers)

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

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘CK CREA-
CIONES KENNYA’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25 (application
No 3.386.604).

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Primarily the Community figura-
tive mark ‘CK Calvin Klein’ (mark No 66.712) for goods and
services in Classes 3, 4, 8, 9, 14, 16, 20, 21, 24-27, 35 and 42
and the national marks ‘CK’ for goods in Classes 18 and 25.

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1) and (5) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) since there exists a likelihood of confusion
between the marks in dispute and the mark ‘CK’ is well known.

(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 29 May 2007 — Ashoka v OHIM
(DREAM IT, DO IT!)

(Case T-186/07)

(2007/C 170/67)

Language of the case: English

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Ashoka (Arlington, United States) (represented by: A.
Link and A. Jaeger-Lenz, lawyers)

— annulment of the contested decision of 29 March 2007 in

Case R 314/2006-2;

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

— rejection of Community word mark No 3 386 604 CK

CREACIONES KENNYA;

— order OHIM to pay the costs including those of the inter-

Form of order sought

vener.

Pleas in law and main arguments

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office
for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and
Designs) (OHIM) of 15 March 2007 (Case R 635/2006-1);

— order OHIM to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Zafra Marroquineros, S.L.

by the applicant.

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/35

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘DREAM IT, DO
IT!’ for services in classes 35, 36, 41 and 45 — application
No 3 844 792

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

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 as the trade mark applied for will be perceived
by the relevant public as coming from a particular undertaking
since it has not become customary in the current language or in
the practices of trade as a designation of the services covered by
it.

The contested decision in the present case is the same as that in
Case T-96/07 Telecom Italia Media v Commission (1).

The following grounds of annulment are submitted in support
of the action:

— infringement of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, inadequate
reasoning and failure to conduct a proper investigation
concerning the classification of the measures as State aid.
The applicant submits in particular that the measures in
question do not constitute State aid in that they do not
entail a transfer of State resources to the alleged beneficiaries
and do not confer on them a selective advantage to the
detriment of competitors.

Action brought on 28 May 2007 — Fastweb v Commission

(Case T-188/07)

(2007/C 170/68)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Fastweb SpA (represented by: M. Merloa, of its Legal
Service, T. Ubalidi, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annul the Commission's decision (C(2006) 6634 final) of
24 January 2007 relating to State aid C52/2005 (ex NN
in so far as it classifies as
88/2005, ex CP 101/2004)
unlawful State aid which is incompatible with the common
market measures which Italy implemented by providing
subsidies for the purchase of digital decoders to terrestrial
broadcasters offering pay-TV services and cable pay-TV
operators (Article 1 of the decision);

— annul the Commission's decision (C(2006) 6634 final) of
24 January 2007 in so far as it orders Italy to recover the
aid declared incompatible from the beneficiaries and in par-
ticular from the applicant (Articles 2 and 3 of the decision);

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

— Infringement of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, contradictory
and inadequate reasoning with regard to the identification
and existence of an economic advantage in favour of the
alleged beneficiaries of the aid. The applicant states that the
Commission's assessment of the identification of the form
of aid, that is, the economic advantage which the alleged
beneficiaries would have enjoyed, is inadequate and that the
statement of reasons is manifestly contradictory. The deci-
sion is also vitiated in that if fails to demonstrate in what
manner the subsidies granted to consumers to purchase
indisputably
decoders
conferred an economic advantage on the alleged benefici-
aries of the measures.

automatically

necessarily,

and

— A failure to state adequate reasons with regard to the quanti-
fication of the aid to be recovered from the beneficiaries and
unlawfulness of the order for recovery on the basis that it
infringes the rules of the Treaty on State aid and Article 14
of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March
1999. The applicant submits that the Commission's quantifi-
cation of the advantage which would have been conferred
on the alleged beneficiaries of the proposed measures is
based on inadequate reasoning and goes beyond the powers
conferred on the Commission by the EC Treaty and by the
procedural regulation for State aid.

— Unlawfulness of the order for recovery in that it is absolutely
and objectively impossible from the outset to implement it,
a failure to state adequate reasons and infringement of
Article 14(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of
22 March 1999 and of the principle of proportionality.

(1) OJ L 117, 29.5.2007, p. 32.