Case T-202/07: Action brought on 6 June 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM ( 555 )
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

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