Case T-178/07: Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Euro-Information v OHIM
Date: 2007-07-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual equipment, financial institution, information processing, insurance, trade-mark law

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/31

Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision is
vitiated by an essential procedural requirement in respect of
Article 74 CTMR and the burden of proof. According to the
in revocation proceedings, the burden of proof in
applicant,
respect of genuine use lies with the proprietor of the trade
mark. Moreover, the applicant submits that the Office cannot
examine the facts on its own motion but its examination should
be confined to the assessment of the facts, evidence and argu-
ments provided by the parties and the relief sought. Thus, the
applicant claims that the Board's communication of 18 October
2006 on the basis of which the trade mark proprietor was
invited to submit the originals of specific statutory declarations
should be declared inadmissible, in particular since the Board
had previously found the initial evidence submitted by the trade
mark proprietor to be insufficient to establish genuine use.

Furthermore, the applicant claims that the said originals were
in accordance to
not submitted within the required deadline,
Article 74(2) CTMR and therefore should not be admitted.

In addition, the applicant submits that the Board erred in its
interpretation of the concept of genuine use infringing thereby
Article 15 CTMR.

Action brought on 23 May 2007 — Mediaset v
Commission

(Case T-177/07)

(2007/C 170/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Mediaset SpA (Milan,
O'Keeffe, Solicitor, K. Adamantopoulos and G. Rossi, lawyers)

(represented by: D.

Italy)

favour of digital terrestrial broadcasters offering Pay-TV services
and cable Pay-TV operators constitutes State aid which is incom-
patible with the common market.

The applicant, who is a beneficiary of the State aid in question,
invokes the following pleas in law.

that

submits

the applicant

the Commission
First of all,
committed an error of law in the application and interpretation
of Article 87(1) EC insofar as i) the Commission considered aid
granted directly to the consumers to fall within the ambit of
Article 87(1) EC;
the
measure conferred a selective ‘economic advantage’ on the appli-
cant; iii) the Commission concluded that the measure is selective
because it allegedly is discriminatory, and iv) the Commission
considered the measure to distort competition in the common
market.

the Commission concluded that

ii)

applicant

furthermore

The
the Commission
committed a manifest error of appraisal and a manifest error of
law by concluding that the measure was not compatible with
the common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(c) EC.

claims

that

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission infringed
an essential procedural requirement by giving contradictory and
insufficient reasoning contrary to Article 253 EC.

the applicant argues that

Finally,
the Commission infringed
Article 14 of Council Regulation No 659/1999 (2) in ordering
recovery of the measure, because it failed to see that i) the appli-
cant had legitimate expectations to assume the alleged aid was
lawful and ii) because it is impossible to establish the amount of
the aid and identify the potential indirect beneficiaries.

(1) C 52/2005 (ex NN 88/2005, ex CP 101/2004).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 659/1999 of 22 March 1999 laying
down detailed rules for the application of Article 93 of the EC Treaty
(OJ 1999 L 83, p. 1).

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Action brought on 21 May 2007 — Euro-Information v
OHIM

Form of order sought

— Annul, on the basis of Article 230 of the EC Treaty, (ex
Article 173), the Commission's decision of 24 January 2007
on the State aid C 52/2005 which the Republic of Italy has
implemented in relation to the subsidy of digital decoders in
Italy, in particular Articles 1 to 3 thereof;

— order that all the costs occasioned by the applicant in the
course of the present proceedings be borne by the defen-
dant.

Parties

(Case T-178/07)

(2007/C 170/61)

Language of the case: French

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: Société Européenne de traitement de l'Information
SAS (Strasbourg, France)
(represented by P. Greffe and J.
Schouman, laywers)

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2006) 6634 final (1) of 24 January 2007 by which the
Commission found that the scheme put in place by Italy in

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

C 170/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

21.7.2007

Form of order sought

— annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of
15 March 2007, Case R 1249/2006-1, in so far as it refused
to grant
its Community trade mark application CYBER-
HOME No 4 114 666 for part of the goods and services
applied for in Classes 9, 36 and 38;

— the granting of

its Community trade mark application
CYBERHOME No 4 114 666 for all the goods and services
applied for

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘CYBERHOME’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 36 and 38 (application
No 4 114 666)

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: The applicant submits that, contrary to the Board
of Appeal of OHIM's finding in the contested decision, its mark
is arbitrary and is sufficiently distinctive in relation to the goods
and services applied for to meet the requirements of Council
Regulation No 40/94 (1).

(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 23 May 2007 — Anvil Knitwear v
OHIM — Aprile e Aprile (Aprile)

(Case T-179/07)

(2007/C 170/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

based on German trade mark registration No 30 011 766
‘ANVIL’
application
No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be annulled;

against Community

trade mark

— the opposition against Community trade mark application
No 3 800 232 ‘Aprile’ & device be granted and application
for registration of Community trade mark No 3 800 232
‘Aprile’ & device be rejected;

— defendant pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Aprile e Aprile Srl

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Aprile’ for
goods in classes 18 and 25 — application No 3 800 232

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

Mark or sign cited: The national word mark ‘ANVIL’ for goods in
class 25

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in
its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 73 and 74 of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal did not evaluate
the aspects of the partial identity and partial similarity of the
goods in question as well as the increased distinctiveness of the
earlier mark. Furthermore the Board of Appeal did neither
objectively nor without prejudice state the reasons on which its
decision was based, nor did it take the uncontested facts of the
proceedings properly into account.

Action brought on 25 May 2007 — Eurocopter v OHIM
(STEADYCONTROL)

Parties

Applicant: Anvil Knitwear, Inc. (New York, USA) (represented by:
G. Würtenberger, T. Wittmann, lawyers, and R. Kunze, Solicitor)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Aprile e
Aprile Srl (Frazione Funo, Italy)

Parties

(Case T-181/07)

(2007/C 170/63)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Applicant: Eurocopter (Marignane, France)
Soler Borda, lawyer)

(represented by E.

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 22 March
2007 in Case R 1076/2006-2 concerning the opposition

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