Case T-314/07: Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU programme, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), audiovisual industry, audiovisual production, contract

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/25

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and arguments relied upon are similar to those in
Case T-234/04 Netherlands v Commission (previously Case
C-103/04) (1).

a period of emissions which the UK authorities knew to be
unrepresentative;

(b) impedes the right of establishment of the applicant's parent

company, Cemex Espana SA.

(1) OJ 2004 C 94, p. 30.

Action brought on 16 August 2007 — Cemex UK Cement
v Commission

(Case T-313/07)

(2007/C 235/46)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Cemex UK Cement Ltd (Thorpe, United Kingdom),
(represented by: S. Tromans, C. Thomann, lawyers, D. Wyatt QC
and S. Taylor, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— to annul the Commission Decision of 12 June 2007, noti-
fied to the applicant, and received on 21 June 2007,
rejecting the complaint made by Cemex UK Cement Limited
concerning the national allocation plan for the allocation of
greenhouse gas emission allowances notified by the United
Kingdom in accordance with Directive 2003/87/EC of the
European Parliament and the Council;

— order the Commission to pay the applicant's costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This application seeks annulment of a Commission decision
contained in a letter dated 12 June 2007 and received by the
applicant on 21 June 2007, rejecting a complaint filed by the
applicant concerning the national allocation plan for Phase II of
the EU Emissions Trading Scheme notified by the United
Kingdom in accordance with directive 2003/87/EC (1) of the
European Parliament and the Council.

The applicant complained to the European Commission that the
reduction of allowances under the latter national allocation
plan, in respect of the applicant's Rugby plant, along with the
resulting over-allocation in respect of installations operated by
the applicant's competitors, amounted to unlawful State aid,
which allegedly:

The applicant further contends that the Commission was wrong
to see no incompatible aid deriving from the ‘First Year Rule’
and accordingly wrong to decline to initiate proceedings under
Article 88(2) EC.
the
Commission was wrong to conclude that the allocation metho-
dology of allowances applied by the United Kingdom to the
Rugby plant was not discriminatory and was consistent with
Commission guidance.

the applicant claims

In that sense,

(1) Directive 2003/87/EC of

the
Council concerning the establishment of a scheme for greenhouse
gas emission allowance trading in the Community and amending
Council Directive 96/61/EC (OJ L 275, p. 32).

the European Parliament and of

Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Simsalagrimm
Filmproduktion v Commission and EACEA

(Case T-314/07)

(2007/C 235/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant:
Germany) (represented by: D. Reich and D. Sharma, lawyers)

Simsalagrimm Filmproduktion GmbH (Munich,

Defendants: Commission of
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

the European Communities and

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision Debit Note No 3240905584 of 20 June

2007;

— order the defendants to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In 1998, the applicant and the Commission signed a contract
relating to support
for a computer-animated cartoon series
within the framework of the MEDIA II — Development and
distribution programme (1). By letter of 20 June 2007, EACEA
demanded reimbursement by the applicant of all of the monies
advanced pursuant to that contract. The applicant brought the
present action to contest that decision.

(a) unlawfully discriminates against the Rugby plant by failing
to take sufficient account of the latter plant's period of
commissioning, and by basing the allocation to the plant on

The applicant claims, first, that EACEA was not formally compe-
tent to take the contested decision, as it is the Commission that
remains competent in that regard.

C 235/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

Further, the applicant submits that the contested decision is
unlawful because of a breach of the duty to provide reasons for
the acts of an authority for the purposes of Article 256 EC.

In addition, the applicant's rights of defence have been infringed
inasmuch as its application to inspect the file was rejected, thus
making it impossible for the applicant to determine the criterion
used to justify the demand for repayment.

The applicant complains also that the support contract was not
validly terminated, and that the conditions for its termination
also did not exist. In that regard, it claims, inter alia, that the
termination of the contract and the demand for repayment of
the financial support advanced constitute an infringement of the
principle of protection of legitimate expectations.

(1) Council Decision 95/563/EC of 10 July 1995 on the implementation
of a programme encouraging the development and distribution of
European audiovisual works (Media II — Development and distribu-
tion) (1996-2000) (OJ 1995 L 321, p. 25).

consequently,
between the opposing signs;

in that

respect a likelihood of confusion

— alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so
far as it finds that there is a lack of recognition in Spain of
the name AKIRA in relation to a Japanese comic and, conse-
quently, in that respect a likelihood of confusion between
the opposing signs;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market to

pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALIRA’ for goods in
Class 11 (Application No 2 766 640).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Compañía Roca Radiadores, S.A.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish word mark ‘AKIRA’ for
goods in Class 11 (No 2 045 604).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition allowed; registra-
tion refused.

Action brought on 22 August 2007 — Grohe v OHIM —
Compañía Roca Radiadores (ALIRA)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed.

(Case T-315/07)

(2007/C 235/48)

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), as there is no likelihood of confusion between the
opposing marks.

Language in which the application was lodged: German

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

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

Parties

Applicant: Grohe AG (Hemer, Germany)
A. Lensing-Kramer, lawyer)

(represented by:

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Compañía Roca Radiadores, S.A.

Action brought on 20 August 2007 — Commercy v OHIM
— easyGroup IP Licensing (easyHotel)

(Case T-316/07)

(2007/C 235/49)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 19 June

2007 in Case R 850/2006-4;

Parties

— alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so
far as it finds that there is a similarity of goods between
‘kitchen faucets’ and ‘cast-iron bathtubs’ and, consequently, a
likelihood of confusion between the opposing signs;

— alternatively, annul or amend the contested decision in so
far as it finds that there is a phonetic similarity in Spain
between the mark applied for and the opposing mark and,

Applicant: Commercy AG (Weimar, Germany) (represented by: F.
Jaschke, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
easyGroup IP Licensing Limited