Case T-387/07: Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese Republic v Commission
Date: 2007-10-11
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, European Regional Development Fund, Portugal, action for annulment (EU), aid system

C 297/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.12.2007

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: A figurative mark representing a
tractor in red, black and grey for goods in class 12 — applica-
tion No 3 944 139

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Mark or sign cited: The community and national word mark
‘Aygill's’ for goods in classes 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21,
24, 25, 26, 27 and 28

Decision of
entirety

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Opposition
Division's decision and rejection of the opposition in its entirety

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (3) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 as the figurative mark applied for had
acquired distinctive character through use.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94

Action brought on 4 October 2007 — Peek & Cloppenburg
v OHIM — Redfil (Agile)

Action brought on 11 October 2007 — Portuguese
Republic v Commission

(Case T-386/07)

(2007/C 297/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

(Case T-387/07)

(2007/C 297/90)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Applicant: Peek & Cloppenburg (KG)
(Hamburg, Germany)
(represented by: T. Dolde, A. Renck and V. von Bomhard,
lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Redfil SL
(Barcelona, Spain)

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
in Case

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks
of
and Designs)
No R 1324/2006-2; and

2007

July

26

Parties

Applicant: Portuguese Republic (Lisbon, Portugal)
by: L. Inês Fernandes, S. Rodrigues and A. Gattini, Agents)

(represented

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— annulment

1

of Article

of Commission Decision
C(2007) 3772 of 31 July 2007 reducing the assistance
granted by the European Regional Development Fund for
the global grant ‘SGAIA’ (global grant for local development)
pursuant to Decision C(95) 1769 of the European Commis-
sion of 28 July 1995;

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

defendant.

— an order that the Commission of the European Commu-

nities should pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Redfil SL

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Agile’ for
goods in classes 18, 25 and 28 — application No 2 659 456

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

Lack of clarity in the statement of reasons. With the expression
‘as shown above’, the defendant makes a generic reference to the
summarily carried out and reconstructed in the
analysis
contested decision. In Chapter 6,
‘Conclusions’, the defendant
does not clearly identify what are the laws or provisions
infringed by the Portuguese Republic.

8.12.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/45

Non-existence of the irregularity detected and infringement of
the terms of the agreement concluded by the Commission and
the Caixa Geral de Depósitos on 15 November 1995 by the
Commission in the contested decision. The irregularity referred
to by the Commission in the contested decision is groundless,
for no account has been taken of Articles 5 and 6 of the Agree-
ment, which allow the remaining future payments to be put
back to 31 December 2001.

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 as the conflicting trade marks are not visually
or phonetically similar.

Action brought on 15 October 2007 — Earth Products v
OHIM — Meynard Designs (EARTH)

Appeal brought on 11 October 2007 by Michael Alexander
Spenser against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal
delivered on 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06, Speiser
v Parliament

(Case T-389/07)

(2007/C 297/91)

(Case T-390/07 P)

(2007/C 297/92)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Earth Products, Inc. (Carlsbad, United States) (repre-
sented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Appellant: Michael Alexander Spenser (Ixelles, Belgium) (repre-
sented by F. Theumer, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings: European Parliament

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Meynard
Designs, Inc. (Waltham, United States)

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 9 August
2007 insofar as it has upheld the decision of the Opposition
Division;

— Annul paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part of the deci-

sion of the Civil Service Tribunal in full;

— Annul paragraph 3 of the operative part of the decision of
the Tribunal in so far as it does not order the other party to
pay all the costs.

— order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay those

Pleas in law and main arguments

of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘EARTH’ for
goods in class 25 — application No 2 907 608

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Meynard Designs, Inc.

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national figurative mark
‘EARTH’ for goods in classes 3, 14, 18, 25 and 35

Decision of
entirety

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its

The appeal is directed against the decision of the Civil Service
Tribunal of 10 September 2007 in Case F-146/06, Speiser v
Parliament, by which the appellant's application was dismissed as
being manifestly inadmissible.

The appellant submits, in support of his appeal, first of all, that
the evidence relevant to the ruling presented by both parties
was in part not assessed, contradictorily and/or not properly
assessed. He further argues that the Civil Service Tribunal failed
to apply the principles of good faith and sound administration
to the whole of its decision. Finally, the appellant contends that,
by the disputed decision, the Civil Service Tribunal departs from
its ruling of 28 June 2006 in Case F-101/05, Grundheid v
Commission.