Case T-290/07: Action brought on 31 July 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM — Metronia (METRONIA)
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), provision of services, trade-mark law

C 235/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

Action brought on 30 July 2007 — Caisse Nationale des
Caisses d'Épargne et de Prévoyance v Commission

Finally, the applicant submits that the Commission erred by
evaluating the national measure at issue in the light of the prin-
ciple of the freedom to supply services.

(Case T-289/07)

(2007/C 235/32)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Caisse Nationale des Caisses d'Épargne
et de
Prévoyance (CNCEP) (Paris, France) (represented by: F. Sureau, D.
Théophile and É. Renaudeau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of
10 May 2007 pursuant to Article 86(3) of the EC Treaty on
the special rights granted to La Banque Postale, Caisses
d'Épargne and Crédit Mutuel for the distribution of the livret
A and livret bleu;

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

three

By this action, the applicant seeks annulment of Commission
Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007 declaring the
provisions of the French Code Monétaire et Financier which
give
institutions, La Banque Postale, Caisses
d'Épargne et de Prévoyance and Crédit Mutuel, special rights for
the distribution of the livret A and livret bleu to be incompatible
with Article 86(1) EC in conjunction with Articles 43 EC and
49 EC.

credit

In support of its action, the applicant raises six pleas in law.

The first plea alleges
infringement of essential procedural
requirements in that the Commission did not respect the appli-
cant's rights of the defence and in that the decision is vitiated by
a lack of reasoning.

On the substance, the applicant alleges that the Commission
erred in law in taking the view that the special rights for the
distribution of the livret A and livret bleu constituted, per se, a
restriction on the freedom of establishment. According to the
applicant, the Commission committed an error of assessment in
taking the view that those special rights, in practice, rendered
the exercise of Community freedoms in France less attractive.

Furthermore, the applicant alleges that the contested decision is
vitiated by errors of law and of assessment in that the Commis-
sion took the view that the special rights could not be justified
under Article 86(2) EC, and by a error of assessment in that it
took the view that they could not be justified on grounds of
compelling reasons in the public interest.

Action brought on 31 July 2007 — MIP Metro v OHIM —
Metronia (METRONIA)

(Case T-290/07)

(2007/C 235/33)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH &
Co. KG (Düsseldorf, Germany)
J.-C. Plate,
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: Metronia,
S. A. (Madrid, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
OHIM of 29 May 2007 in Case R 1315/2006-2 as far as the
appeal has been dismissed on the ground that it does not
comply with Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 40/94;

— order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of

the opposition and appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Metronia, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade
mark ‘METRONIA’ for goods in class 9 and goods and services
in classes 20, 28 and 41 — application No 3 387 834

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: MIP
Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Mark or sign cited: The national figurative trade mark ‘METRO’
for goods and services in classes 9, 20, 28 and 41, among
others

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and
rejected the application in its entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the opposition and
allowed the application to proceed

6.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/19

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) CTMR

The applicant claims that the contested decision is inconsistent
with Article 8(1)(b) CTMR insofar as the Board held there was
no likelihood of confusion between the conflicting marks, due
to a lack of similarity of the signs concerned.

Decision of
appealed annulled.

the Board of Appeal: Appeal upheld and decision

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1) on the Community trade mark.

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

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

Action brought on 1 August 2007 — Viñedos y Bodegas
Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe v OHIM — Byass
(ALFONSO)

(Case T-291/07)

(2007/C 235/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Action brought on 27 July 2007 — Stepek v OHIM —
Masters Golf Company (GOLF-FASHION MASTERS THE
CHOICE TO WIN)

(Case T-294/07)

(2007/C 235/35)

Parties

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Applicant: Viñedos y Bodegas Príncipe Alfonso de Hohenlohe
(Cenicero, Spain) (represented by: M Lobato García-Miján and B.
Díaz de Escauriaza, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
González Byass, S. A.

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office of 29 May 2007 upholding the appeal brought by
GONZÁLEZ BYASS, S.A. against the decision of the Opposi-
tion Division of 6 July 2007 which upheld the opposition
filed by the applicant against the application for the Com-
munity trade mark ALFONSO;

— Order the Office to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: GONZÁLEZ BYASS, S.A.

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘ALFONSO’ (appli-
cation for registration No 3398278) for goods in Classes 30
(vinegars), 32 (beers, mineral and aerated waters and other non-
alcoholic drinks, fruit drinks and fruit juices, syrups and other
preparations for making beverages) and 33 (sherries).

Parties

Applicant: Wilhelm Stepek (Stadl-Paura, Austria) (represented by:
H. Heigl, W. Berger and G. Lehner, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
The Masters Golf Company Ltd.

Form of order sought

that

— acknowledgement

the First Board of Appeal of

the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market was
wrong to adopt
the decision of 23 May 2007 in Case
R 95/2007-1;

— annulment of the decision of the First Board of Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of
23 May 2007 in Case R 95/2007-1;

— an order that The Masters Golf Company Ltd pays the appli-

cant the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant.

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Wilhelm Stepek.

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community and national word
marks ‘PRÍNCIPE ALFONSO’, for goods in Class 33.

Decision of
the Opposition Division: Opposition in relation to
‘sherries’ upheld and application for registration for those goods
refused.

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘GOLF-
FASHION MASTERS THE CHOICE TO WIN’
for goods in
Classes 3, 9, 12, 18, 24, 25 and 28 (application No 3 136 041).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
Masters Golf Company Ltd.