Case T-226/07: Action brought on 20 June 2007 — Prana Haus v OHIM (PRANAHAUS)
Date: 2007-09-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), printing, trade-mark law

8.9.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

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

By the present action, the applicant seeks the annulment of
Commission Decision No REM 03/05 of 7 May 2007 holding
that the remission of import duties is not justified in the par-
ticular case of the applicant. That decision was issued following
the application made to the Commission by the French national
authorities, who had claimed from the applicant payment of
anti-dumping duties on importation of colour television recei-
vers manufactured in Thailand by its subsidiary there, and on
which the subsidiary had applied for remission on the basis of
Article 239 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs
Code. (1)

The applicant considers that it is entitled to the remission on
the basis of Article 239 of Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, since,
in its opinion, it satisfies the two conditions laid down in that
provision.

As regards the first condition (the existence of a special situa-
tion), the applicant claims that its situation is certainly special
and is the result of, first, the conduct of the Commission which
changed its approach to interpretation of the legal provisions on
the origin of goods without having properly informed traders,
the national authorities who
and, second,
followed the approach adopted by the Commission.

the conduct of

As regards the second condition referred to in Article 239 of
Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (no deception or negligence), the
applicant claims that it cannot be considered to have been negli-
gent since it trusted in the validity of the initial position of the
Commission's services, who,
in the opinion of the applicant,
decided not to employ in its case a strict application of the rules
of origin but to apply to it the special anti-dumping duties on
all the receivers manufactured and exported by its Thailand
subsidiary.

(1) OJ L 302, p. 1.

Form of order sought

— annul the Decision of the First Board of Appeal of 18 April

2007 in Case R 1611/2006-1;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to
enter trade mark application No 4 839 916 ‘PRANAHAUS’
in the Register of Community trade marks and

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘PRANAHAUS’
for goods and services in classes 9, 16 and 35 (application
No 4 839 916)

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 Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), since there is no absolute ground for refusal
of registration of the trade mark applied for.

(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 20 June 2007 — Prana Haus v OHIM
(PRANAHAUS)

(Case T-226/07)

(2007/C 211/71)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 28 June 2007 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-227/07)

(2007/C 211/72)

Language of the proceedings: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: M. Muñoz Pérez)

Applicant: Prana Haus (Freiburg, Germany) (represented by N.
Hebeis, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities