Case T-100/06: Action brought on 26 July 2007 — Rajani (Dear!Net Online) v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)
Date: 2007-10-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), pulp and paper industry, trade-mark law

C 235/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.10.2007

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

Action brought on 26 July 2007 — Rajani

(Dear!Net

Online) v OHIM — Artoz-Papier (ATOZ)

due to an alleged lack of reasoning and a violation of the right
to be heard.

(Case T-100/06)

(2007/C 235/21)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Deepak Rajani (Berlin, Germany) (represented by: A.
Dustmann, lawyer)

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

Action brought on 18 July 2007 — CSL Behring v
Commission and EMEA

(Case T-264/07)

(2007/C 235/22)

Language of the case: German

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Artoz-
Papier AG (Lenzburg, Switzerland)

Parties

Form of order sought

the decision of

the Second Board of
— Annulment of
Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 January 2006 (case
R 1126/2004-2)

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Deepak Rajani

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark
‘ATOZ’
in classes 35 and 41 — application
No 1 319 961

services

for

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Artoz-Papier AG

Applicant: CSL Behring GmbH (Marburg, Federal Republic of
Germany) (represented by: Professor C. König and F. Leinen,
Rechtsanwalt)

Defendants: Commission of
European Medicines Agency (EMEA)

the European Communities and

Form of order sought

— annul, pursuant to the first paragraph of Article 231 EC,
EMEA's decision of 24 May 2007 in the ‘Human Fibrinogen
— Application for Orphan Medicinal Product Designation
— EMEA/OD/018/07’ case, received by the applicant on
24 May 2007;

— order

the defendant

to
Article 87(2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of First
Instance.

costs pursuant

to pay

the

Mark or sign cited: The international and national word mark
‘ARTOZ’ for services in classes 35 and 41

Pleas in law and main arguments

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition in its
entirety

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: The applicant alleges that the contested decision
was rendered in violation of Article 43(2) and (3) of the CTMR
insofar as it adopted an undue interpretation of the trademark's
registration term. According to the applicant such ultra vires
laws
interpretation of Community, national and international
amounts to a misuse of power. Furthermore,
the applicant
claims that the Board's decision is in breach of Article 8(1)(b)
CTMR. Finally, the applicant contends that both the opposition
division and the Board of Appeal have substantially infringed
the procedural safeguards of Articles 73 and 79 of the CTMR

The applicant contests EMEA's letter of 24 May 2007. The
applicant takes the view that, by that letter, the EMEA refuses in
a legally binding manner to continue the procedure for the
designation of the applicant's medicinal product as an orphan
medicinal product pursuant to Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC)
No 141/2000 (1).

The applicant relies on two pleas in law in support of its action.

The applicant submits, first, that an interpretation of Article 5(1)
of Regulation No 141/2000 to the effect that the application for
designation of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal
product must be submitted before the application for marketing
authorisation for that medicinal product is incorrect. That provi-
sion was therefore applied incorrectly.