Case T-345/07: Action brought on 13 September 2007 — La Banque Postale v Commission
Date: 2007-11-10
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: France, action for annulment (EU), banking, savings, services of general interest

C 269/60

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.11.2007

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — La Banque
Postale v Commission

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), since the trade mark applied for does not
lack the necessary distinctive character and is not descriptive.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on the

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

(Case T-345/07)

(2007/C 269/109)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Action brought on 10 September 2007 — O2 (Germany) v
OHIM (Homezone)

Applicant: La Banque Postale (represented by: S. Hautbourg and
J.-E. Skovron, lawyers)

(Case T-344/07)

(2007/C 269/108)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

Parties

Applicant: O2 (Germany) GmbH & Co. OHG (Munich, Germany)
(represented by A. Fottner and M. Müller, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 5 July 2007 in Case R 1583/2006-4 in so far as it rejects
the application;

— Order OHIM to pay the costs of the present proceedings

and those of the proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Homezone’ for
goods and services in Classes 9, 38 and 42 (application
No 4 677 506).

Decision of the Examiner: In part, rejection of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) and of Article 7(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1).

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/1994 of 20 December 1993 on the

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

— Annul in its entirety the contested decision on the basis of

the fourth paragraph of Article 230 EC;

— Order the Commission to pay the entire costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant requests the annulment of
Commission Decision C(2007) 2110 final of 10 May 2007
declaring incompatible with Article 86(1) EC,
in conjunction
with Article 43 EC and Article 49 EC, the provisions of the
French Code Monétaire et Financier (Monetary and Financial
Code) which reserve for three credit institutions — the appli-
cant, the Caisses d'Epargne et de Prévoyance and the Crédit Mutuel
— special rights for the distribution of the savings account
books known as ‘livret A’ and ‘livret bleu’.

In support of its action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

First, the applicant submits that the Commission infringed its
right to a fair hearing during the procedure which led to the
contested decision in that
the applicant was not given the
opportunity to comment on two reports provided to the
Commission by the complainants and which, according to the
applicant,
the
Commission's case.

transpired to form a fundamental part of

and on the

freedom to provide

Second, it claims that the Commission made numerous errors
of law and of appraisal in holding that the distribution arrange-
ments for the livret A constituted a restriction on the freedom of
establishment
services.
According to the applicant, the Commission erred in law by
giving a very broad interpretation to the notion of ‘restrictions’
in the sense of Articles 43 EC and 49 EC and to the circum-
stances in which those two principles may be relied upon. The
applicant also submits that the Commission concluded, wrongly,
that the special right makes establishment on the French market
for bank savings more difficult and more costly.

10.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/61

Third, the applicant claims that the contested decision is tainted
by errors of law and of appraisal in so far as the Commission
held that the current arrangements for distribution of the livret
A could not be justified under Article 86(2) EC. According to
the applicant, the Commission made an error of law and several
errors of appraisal in its definition of accessibility to banking
services connected with the livret A as a service of general
economic interest and in its analysis of whether the special right
the
was necessary and proportionate in order to carry out
service of general economic interest of accessibility to banking
services and of that relating to social housing.

According to its fourth plea in law, the applicant contends that
the reasons given for the contested decision are contradictory
and inadequate.

Action brought on 13 September 2007 — Duro
Sweden v OHIM (EASYCOVER)

(Case T-346/07)

(2007/C 269/110)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Duro Sweden AB (Gävle, Sweden) (represented by: R.
Bird, Solicitor)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal dated

3 July 2007 in Case No R 1065/2005-4;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of this appeal, and

— order the grant of the application as a Community trade

mark in accordance with the regulation.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘EASYCOVER’
for goods in classes 19, 24 and 27 — application No 4 114 567

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

mark application infringed Article 7(1)(b) on the basis that the
trade mark application infringed Article 7(1)(c) without asserting
any independent grounds for infringement of Article 7(1)(b)

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of the regulation as the Board of
Appeal did not take all aspects of the trade mark applied for
into account.

Action brought on 12 September 2007 — Al-Aqsa v
Council of the European Union

(Case T-348/07)

(2007/C 269/111)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Stichting Al-Aqsa (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
sented by: J. Pauw, lawyer)

(repre-

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

— Annul Council Decision 2007/445/EC in so far as it applies
that Regulation (EC)
and declare

to the
No 2580/2001 does not apply to the applicant;

applicant,

— order the Council to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant submits that Council Decision 2007/445/EC of
28 June 2007 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC)
No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against
certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism
is void in so far as it relates to it.

In support of its application, the applicant submits, first, that
the Council Common Position of 27 December 2001 on the
application of specific measures to combat terrorism (1) does
not apply to it.

Second, the applicant submits that no competent authority has
taken a decision with respect
to the applicant within the
meaning of Article 1(4) of the Council Common Position of
27 December 2001.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 as the Board of Appeal held that the trade

Third, the applicant states that it has had no intention, culp-
ability or knowledge with regard to the support of terrorist
activities.