Case T-201/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM ( 333 )
Date: 2007-08-04
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), document, trade-mark law, user guide

4.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/35

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 22 March 2007 in
Case R 1276/2006-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘BUDWEISER’
for goods and services in Class 32 (application No 24 646).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Budějoviský Budvar, národní podnik.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The international word mark
‘BUDWEISER’ for goods in Class 32, the international figurative
mark ‘Budweiser Budvar’ for goods in Classes 31 and 32 and
the international figurative mark ‘Budweiser Budvar’ for goods
in Class 32.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

Pleas in law: Infringement of the right to be heard,
incorrect
application of Article 74(2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) and
infringement of Article 43(2) of that regulation; in the alterna-
tive, infringement of Article 73 of that regulation on account of
an inadequate statement of reasons.

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘222’ for goods in
Class 16

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: incorrect application of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of
Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), in that,
according to the applicant,
is neither
descriptive nor non-distinctive for the goods referred to.

the designation ‘222’

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993, OJ L 11,

14.1.1994, p. 1.

Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza
Technopol v OHIM (‘333’)

Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza
Technopol v OHIM (222)

(Case T-200/07)

(2007/C 183/68)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

(Case T-201/07)

(2007/C 183/69)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o. o. (repre-
sented by D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o.o. (repre-
sented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

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

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— annul

in its entirety the decision of the Fourth Board of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal

Appeal of

— set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 22 March
the Office for
(Trade Marks and

2007 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of
Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Designs) in Case No R 1277/2006-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

C 183/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.8.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘333’ for goods in
Class 16

mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designa-
tion ‘555’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descrip-
tive nor devoid of distinctive character.

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: misapplication of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade
mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designa-
tion ‘333’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descrip-
tive nor devoid of distinctive character.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994

L 11, p. 1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994

L 11, p. 1).

Action brought on 7 June 2007 — Eurallumina v
Commission

(Case T-207/07)

(2007/C 183/71)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza
Technopol v OHIM (‘555’)

Parties

(Case T-202/07)

(2007/C 183/70)

Language of the case: Polish

Applicant: Eurallumina SpA (Portoscuso, Italy) (represented by: L.
Martin Alegi, R. Denton and E. Cormack, Solicitors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza ‘Technopol’ Sp. z o.o. (repre-
sented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— set aside in its entirety decision no R 1278/2006-4 delivered
on 22 March 2007 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade
Marks and Designs);

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘555’ for goods in
Class 16

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Pleas in law: misapplication of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b)
and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade

Form of order sought

— Either:

— annul the entirety of the contested decision; or

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State
should not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at
least not be recovered; or

— annul the entirety of the contested decision and order
that the present exemption authorised by Council Deci-
sion 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December 2006
and that any sums foregone by the Italian State should
not be considered as unlawful State aid, or at least not
be recovered; or

— order that a maximum of 3 EUR per tonne should be

recovered.

— Either:

— annul Articles 1, 4, 5 and 6 of the contested decision

insofar as they pertain to Eurallumina; or

— order that the present exemption authorised by Council
Decision 2001/224/EEC is lawful until 31 December
2006 and that any sums foregone by the Italian State
should not be considered unlawful State aid, or at least
not be recovered; or