Case T-318/07: Action brought on 28 August 2007 — National Association of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission
Date: 2007-10-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), coal, complaint to the Commission, discriminatory price, electrical energy

C 247/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.10.2007

Fourth, the applicant submits that the Board committed an
error of
the mark be
striking, imaginative or creative in order to avoid the objections
under Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

law by imposing a requirement

that

Action brought on 17 August 2007 — gardeur v OHIM —
Blue Rose (g)

(Case T-310/07)

(2007/C 247/59)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: gardeur AG (Mönchengladbach, Germany)
sented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser, C. Thomas, lawyers)

(repre-

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Blue Rose
Inc. (Nashville Tennessee, United States)

Form of order sought

— annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal
No R 878/2006 2 of 15 June 2007, regarding Community
trademark No 1153741 ‘g’
in so far as it dismisses the
appeal in relation to goods in Class 25;

— order

the defendant

to pay the costs incurred in the
proceedings before the court and to order the intervener to
pay the costs of the administrative proceedings before the
Board of Appeal.

containing the letter ‘g’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 25,
and 41

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Blue Rose Inc.

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: Gardeur ag

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The Community figurative mark picturing a black square
containing the letter ‘g’ for goods and services in Class 3, 18
and 25 — application No 1153741

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Rejected the request for a
declaration of invalidity

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 4 and Article 8(1)(b) of the
CTMR.

Action brought on 28 August 2007 — National Association
of Licensed Opencast Operators v Commission

(Case T-318/07)

(2007/C 247/60)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: The National Association of Licensed Opencast
Operators (Chester-le-Street, United Kingdom) (represented by:
H. Bracegirdle, Solicitor, M. Hoskins and C. West, Barristers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark consisting of a circle

— The Commission pay the applicant's costs.

— The Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 be annulled.

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/37

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 24 August 2007 — Jones e.a. v
Commission

The applicant seeks the annulment of the Commission's Deci-
sion in Case COMP/35.821 of 18 June 2007 by which the
Commission rejected the applicant's complaint made in 1990
that members of its association had been the victims of a price
discrimination as the prices paid by the Central Electricity
Generating Board (‘CEGB’) between 1984-1990 for
coal
produced by members of the applicant was lower than the
prices paid by the CEGB for coal produced by the British Coal
Corporation (‘BCC’), without there being any objective justifica-
tion for that difference in treatment.

The Commission found in the contested decision that there was
a difference between the prices paid by the CEGB to the appli-
cant's members and the prices paid to the BCC, but sustained
that the BCC and the applicant's members did not supply coal
under comparable conditions. The CEGB was therefore justified
in paying higher prices for the BCC's coal in order to ensure
that it would meet its statutory duty to supply the electricity
needed in the United Kingdom.

In support of its application, the applicant contends that the
Commission's finding that the BCC and the applicant's members
did not supply coal under comparable conditions was not
supported by the evidence upon which the Commission based
its decision.

(Case T-320/07)

(2007/C 247/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicants: Glenn Jones and Daphne Jones (Neath, Wales),
FForch-y-Garron Coal Company Ltd (Neath, Wales), Desmond
Ivor Evans and David Raymond Evans (Maesteg, Wales) (repre-
sented by: D.I.W. Jeffreys, Solicitor)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

the applicant submits that

Furthermore,
the payment of a
premium price for the BCC's coal would constitute state aid that
had not been notified and which would therefore be unlawful.

Form of order sought

Moreover, the applicant alleges that the Commission's findings
are inconsistent with a previous Commission decision from
1991 in respect of the same complaint.

regards

the Commission's

As
the applicant's
complaint in relation to the period from 1984 to 1986 on
grounds of inadmissibility and lack of Community interest, the
applicant submits that:

rejection of

— the Commission erred in finding that it no longer enjoys an
exclusive competence under the ECSC Treaty to rule on the
existence of discrimination in the said period;

— the Commission erred in finding that

the applicant's
members can bring claims before the national courts in
respect of the said period; and

— the delay in resolving the issues raised in the applicant's
complaint from 1990 is the result of previous legal errors
made by the Commission.

— Annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007 in
Case COMP/37.037 concerning the applicants' complaint of
unlawful price discrimination by the Central Electricity
Generating Board;

— order the Commission to pay the applicants' costs of these

proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

This is an application lodged pursuant
to Article 230 EC
seeking annulment of Commission Decision of 18 June 2007
complaint
(Case COMP/37.037 — SWSMA)
according to which pricing practices adopted by the Central
Electricity Generating Board in the period 1984 to 1990 in rela-
tion to coal producers constituted unlawful price discrimination
towards private coal producers including the applicants, which
was contrary to Article 4(b) of the European Coal and Steel
Community Treaty then in force.

rejecting a

the
The applicants contend that,
Commission has committed a number of fundamental errors of
law and/or of appreciation and thus, the decision should be
annulled.

in reaching this decision,