Case T-326/07: Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and Others v Commission
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), dangerous substance, marketing restriction, pharmaceutical product, plant health legislation, plant health product, withdrawal from the market

C 247/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

in which the complainants operated. Moreover,

The applicants claim that the Commission was wrong as a
matter of law to assess the question of price-discrimination on a
country-wide basis rather
than with reference to the local
the
market
applicants submit that the Commission was wrong in stating
that
the licensed private mines could only supply limited
amounts of coal and on a short term basis, taking into account
the size of the mining facilities and British Coal Corporation's
licensing policy. Finally, the applicants claim that the Commis-
sion was wrong to conclude that since the ECSC Treaty has
expired and that it no longer enjoys exclusive competence with
regards to infringements of the latter, a Commission decision
was no longer required before judicial protection was sought
before national courts.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by the applicants
are similar to those relied on in Case T-318/07 National Associa-
tion of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission.

Action brought on 30 August 2007 — Cheminova and
Others v Commission

Action brought on 28 August 2007 — Plant and Others v
Commission

(Case T-324/07)

Parties

(Case T-326/07)

(2007/C 247/63)

Language of the case: English

(2007/C 247/62)

Language of the case: English

Applicants: Cheminova A/S (Harboøre, Denmark), Cheminova
Agro Italia Srl (Rome, Italy), Cheminova Bulgaria EOOD (Sofia,
Bulgaria), Agrodan SA (Madrid, Spain) and Lodi SAS (Grand
(represented by: C. Mereu and K. Van
Fougeray, France)
Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Form of order sought

(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Applicants: Gerry Plant
(Varteg Pontypool, United Kingdom),
Mary Kathleen Plant
(Neath, United Kingdom), William Meyrick
Dennis
Jones
(Swansea, United Kingdom),
J.G. Evans (Ammanford, United
Kingdom), David Vivian Austin (Neath, United Kingdom), D.
Powell
James Rowland McCann
(Neath, United Kingdom), D. B. Diplock (Neath, United
Kingdom), John Phillips (Neath, United Kingdom) and Richard
Thomas Kingston (Swansea, United Kingdom) (represented by:
W. Graham, Solicitor)

(Neath, United Kingdom),

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's Decision dated 18 June 2007 in

Case No. 37037 — SWSMA;

— take such further action as the Court may think just;

— order that the Commission pay the costs of the proceedings.

— Order

the

annulment

of

Commission

Decision

2007/389/EC;

— order the defendant to pay all costs and expenses in these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Council Directive 91/414 concerning the placing of plant
protection products on the market (1) provides that Member
States shall not authorise a plant protection product unless its
active substances are listed in Annex I and any conditions laid
down therein are fulfilled. The applicants seek the annulment of
Commission Decision 2007/389/EC of 6 June 2007 concerning
the non-inclusion of malathion in Annex I to Council Directive
91/414/EEC and the withdrawal of authorisations for plant
protection products containing that substance (2).

fails to consider all

In support of their application, the applicants submit that the
contested decision is scientifically incomplete and flawed in that
the scientific evidence on malathion
it
it
submitted to the defendant. According to the applicants,
furthermore violates Articles 4(1), 5(1) of Directive 91/414 and
Article 95(3) EC as the defendant refused to peer review the
most resent data.

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/39

The applicants further contend that the contested decision was
based on a scientific report which was not established within
the time-limit set out in Article 8(7) of Regulation 451/2000.

and Designs)

Marks
on 28 June 2007 in Case
No R 727/2006-2 be annulled and the defendant be ordered
to register the contested trade mark;

Moreover, the applicants allege among others a violation of the
principles of proportionality, non-discrimination, subsidiarity
and sound administration as well as the obligation to state
reasons and their right to be heard.

— the defendant pays the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Finally, the applicants submit that they will not be able to exer-
cise their intellectual property rights pursuant to Article 13 of
Directive 91/414 in connection with the data package submitted
to the defendant.

Applicant for the Community trade mark: The applicant

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘PATRICK
EXCLUSIVE’ for goods in class 25 — application No 3 063 427

(1) Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the
placing of plant protection products on the market (OJ 1991 L 230,
p. 1).

(2) OJ 2007 L 146, p. 19.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Cassera SpA

Mark or sign cited: Community, national and international figura-
tive marks and word marks ‘G. PATRICK’ for goods in classes 24
and 25

Decision of
entirety

the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in its

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 there is no likelihood of confusion between
the conflicting trade marks.

Action brought on 29 August 2007 — Patrick Holding v
OHIM — Cassera (PATRICK EXCLUSIVE)

(Case T-327/07)

(2007/C 247/64)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Patrick Holding ApS (Fredensborg, Denmark) (repre-
sented by: J. Løje, lawyer)

Action brought on 3 September 2007 — UPS Europe and
UPS Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-329/07)

(2007/C 247/65)

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

Language of the case: English

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Cassera
SpA (Milan, Italy)

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicants: UPS Europe NV/SA (Brussels, Belgium) and UPS
Deutschland Inc. & Co. OHG (Neuss, Germany) (represented by:
T. Ottervanger and E. Henny, lawyers)

— The decision taken by the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade

Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities