Case T-365/07: Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traxdata France v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)
Date: 2007-09-17
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), education, financing, leisure, service, sport, trade-mark law

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/33

Form of order sought

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Traxdata France
v OHIM — Ritrax (TRAXDATA, TEAM TRAXDATA)

— Annul the Commission decision of 20 July 2007;

— Rule that

the applicant

is entitled to exemption from
post-clearance recovery of anti-dumping duties pursuant to
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code (1) and
to Article 871 et seq. of Regulation No 2454/93 (2).

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant seeks annulment of the
decision which it claims is contained in a Commission letter of
20 July 2007 stating that the Commission lacks the competence
to rule on the applicant's request to the French authorities that
it be exempted from post-clearance recovery of duties on the
importation of colour
television receivers manufactured in
Thailand. The applicant's request was forwarded to the Commis-
sion by the French authorities as an annex to the application
the Community Customs Code
based on Article 239 of
concerning the remission of import duties (3).

The applicant claims that the Commission was also under an
obligation to rule on the application based on Article 220(2)(b)
of the Community Customs Code and, by way of a separate
letter, requested it to take a decision. In the present action, the
applicant contests a decision which it claims is contained in the
Commission letter addressed to it in response to its own letter.

The applicant claims that
the Commission erred in law by
finding that the French authorities had referred the case to it
exclusively on the basis of Article 239 of
the Community
Customs Code, given that, according to the applicant, the docu-
ments received by the Commission met the requirements of
Article 871 et seq. of Regulation No 2454/93. The applicant
takes the view that the Commission is under an obligation to
examine whether
of
Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code were met in
this case, particularly in view of the fact that it had decided to
reject its request for remission based on Article 239 of the
Code.

application

conditions

the

for

(1) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 1992 estab-

lishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1992 L 302, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying
down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC)
No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ 1993
L 253, p. 1).

(3) Decision of the Commission of 7 May 2007 ruling on that applica-
tion and indicating to the French authorities that it was not justified
in the applicant's case to accord remission of the duties on importa-
tion which were the subject of an action for annulment before the
Court of First Instance in Case T-225/07 Thomson Sales Europe v
Commission (notice published in OJ C 211, 8.9.2007, p. 36).

(Case T-365/07)

(2007/C 283/61)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Traxdata France SARL (Paris, France) (represented by:
F. Valentin, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Ritrax
Corp. Ltd (London, United Kingdom)

Form of order sought

— Reverse the decision of 23 May 2007 handed down by the
the Office for Harmonisation
First Board of Appeal of
in the Internal Market
in joined cases R 1337/2005-1,
R 1338/2005-1, R 1339/2005-1 and R 1340/2005-1 and
to accordingly declare the invalidity of TRAXDATA CTMs
No 000007393, No 000877779, No 001252725 and
TEAM TRAXDATA No 000877910 for all of the products
and services listed in classes 9, 16 and 42, on the basis of
Article 52(1)(c) of the CTMR of 20 December 1993;

— pronounce

the

invalidity of TEAM TRAXDATA CTM
No 000877910, for the following services listed in class 36:
‘Financial sponsorship of sports and leisure activities; finan-
cial sponsorship of sporting competitions, events and teams;
financial sponsorship of sportsmen and sportswomen […]
advice and consultancy services in relation to all the afore-
said services’;

— pronounce

of

the

invalidity

TRAXDATA

CTMs
No 000877779 and TEAM TRAXDATA No 000877910,
for the following services listed in class 41:
‘entertainment
and education services; arranging and conducting of confer-
ences, congresses, seminars, symposiums,
[…] electronic
game services provided by means of the Internet; publishing
of books, magazines and periodicals; […] amusement centre
services;
rental of video cassettes, audio cassettes,
compact discs and cine films; advice and consultancy
services relating to all the aforesaid services.’

[…]

C 283/34

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

24.11.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
invalidity: The word and figurative marks
declaration of
‘TRAXDATA’ and ‘TEAM TRAXDATA’ for goods and services in
classes 9, 16, 36, 41 and 42 — Community trade marks
No 877 910, 877 779, 7 393 and 1 252 725

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Ritrax Corp. Ltd

— the opposition No B 311 318 dated 2 October 2000 be
rejected as far as this opposition was upheld by the decision
of the Opposition Division of 21 March 2006;

— the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of the proceed-

ings;

— the intervener be ordered to bear the costs of the proceed-

ings before the Office for Harmonisation.

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The unregistered corporate name ‘TRAXDATA FRANCE SARL’
and trade name ‘TRAXDATA’
for the following goods and
‘consultancy, delivery and sale of computer consum-
services:
ables, hardware and accessories’

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejection of the applicant's
requests for a declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: The Board of Appeal infringed Article 52(1)(c) read
in conjunction with Article 8(4) of Council Regulation No 40/94
by finding that the applicant had not furnished proof that it
continues to make use of ‘TRAXDATA’ and by improper appli-
cation of the criteria of likelihood of confusion between the
conflicting trade marks.

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘P&G PRESTIGE
BEAUTE’ for inter alia goods in class 3

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Prestige Cosmetics Srl

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative marks ‘prestige’ for
goods in class 3

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition partially upheld

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 since there is no likelihood of confusion
between the trade mark applied for and the earlier marks as the
goods covered by the trade marks are dissimilar and the trade
marks clearly differ.

Action brought on 24 September 2007 — Procter &
Gamble v OHIM — Prestige Cosmetics (P&G PRESTIGE
BEAUTE)

(Case T-366/07)

(2007/C 283/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 17 September 2007 — Dow
AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-367/07)

(2007/C 283/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: The Procter & Gamble Company (Cincinnati, United
States) (represented by: K. Sandberg, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Prestige
Cosmetics Srl (Anzola Emilia, Italy)

Form of order sought

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom),
BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow
DOW AgroSciences
AgroSciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Dow
AgroSciences GmbH (Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences SAS
(Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins,
France), Dow AgroSciences Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary),
Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl (Milan, Italy), Dow AgroSciences
Polska
(Warsaw, Poland), Dow AgroSciences
Distribution SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroSciences Iberica,
SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow AgroSciences s.r.o.
(Prague, Czech
Republic) and Dow AgroSciences LLC (Indianapolis, United
States) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

z o.o.

sp.

— The decision of the Second Board of Appeal of 19 July

2007 in Case R 681/2006-2 be overruled;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities