Case T-410/07: Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Jurado Hermanos, S.L. v OHIM (JURADO)
Date: 2007-11-16
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), coffee, trade-mark law

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/23

Pleas in law and main arguments

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: José Izquierdo Faces

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘CRUNCH’ for goods
and services in classes 9, 25 and 41 — Community trade mark
No 62 083

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: The applicant

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: ILG Ltd

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Partial declaration of inva-
lidity of the Community trade mark for the goods and services
in classes 9 and 25

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Declaration of invalidity of the
Community trade mark also for the services in class 41

in law:

Pleas
Infringement of Article 50(1)(a), alternatively
Article 50(2), of Council Regulation No 40/94, as the Board of
Appeal erred in finding that there was no genuine use of the
trade mark in question in the Community in connection with
the services in class 41.

Party requesting the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade
mark: The applicant

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The national word mark ‘COPAT’ for goods and services in
classes 9, 35, 41 and 42

Decision of the Cancellation Division: Declaration of invalidity of
the Community trade mark

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the Cancellation
Division's decision and dismissal of the request for a declaration
of invalidity

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 56(2) and (3) of Council
Regulation No 40/94 and Rules 22(2) and 40(5) of Commission
Regulation No 2868/95, as the Board of Appeal
incorrectly
found that
trade mark had not been used in
Germany during the period 1996 to 2001.

the national

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Cohausz v
OHIM — Izquierdo Faces (acopat)

Action brought on 16 November 2007 — Jurado
Hermanos, S.L. v OHIM (JURADO)

(Case T-409/07)

(2008/C 8/41)

(Case T-410/07)

(2008/C 8/42)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helge B. Cohausz (Düsseldorf, Germany)
(represented by: I. Friedhoff, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:
Izquierdo Faces (Bilbao, Spain)

José

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested action [decision of the First Board of
Appeal of
the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 6 September 2007 in
Case R 289/2006-1];

— order intervener and/or [OHIM] to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The figurative mark ‘acopat’ for services
in classes 35 and 42 — Community trade mark No 1 643 782

Parties

Applicant: Jurado Hermanos, S.L. (Alicante, Spain) (represented
by C. Martín Álvarez, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of

3 September 2007 in Case R 866/2007-2;

— Give judgment on the merits of

the case,

recognising
JURADO HERMANOS, S.L., as an interested party in the
renewal procedure for Community trade mark No 240.218,
JURADO HERMANOS, S.L. being the exclusive and regis-
tered licensee of that mark, and acceding to the application
for restitutio in integrum filed by JURADO HERMANOS, S.L.
in relation to the renewal of the Community trade mark
No 240.218, and

— Order OHIM to pay the costs.

C 8/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

12.1.2008

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘JURADO’ (Appli-
cation No 240.218).

Goods or Services: goods in Class 30.

Proprietor of the trade mark which is the subject of the application:
CAFETAL DE COSTA RICA S.A.

Decision of
the Examiner: dismissal by the Administration of
Trade Marks and Legal Division of the application for restitutio
in integrum brought by the applicant, the licensee of the trade
mark in question, as a result of the cancellation of the registra-
tion of that trade mark, owing to the failure of the proprietor to
seek the appropriate renewal.

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

Pleas in law: infringement of the right to a fair hearing and an
incorrect interpretation, in the present case, of Articles 47 and
78(1) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade
mark.

Action brought on 19 November 2007 — Aer Lingus
Group v Commission

(Case T-411/07)

(2008/C 8/43)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Aer Lingus Group plc (Dublin, Ireland) (represented
by: A. Burnside, Solicitor, B. van de Walle de Ghelcke, lawyer, T.
Snels, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

the contested decision adopted by the European

Commission on 11 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks annulment of
Commission Decision C(2007) 4600 of 11 October 2007 by
which the Commission rejected the applicant's request to initiate
proceedings under Article 8(4) and to adopt interim measures

under Article 8(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (the
‘EC Merger Regulation’),
following Commission Decision
C(2007) 3104 of 27 June 2007 (‘the Prohibition Decision’)
declaring a concentration incompatible with the common
market and the functioning of
(Case
COMP/M.4439 — Ryanair — Aer Lingus).

the EEA Agreement

The applicant submits that the Commission has both miscon-
strued and misapplied Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger
Regulation by stating that it did not have the power to require
Ryanair,
its
minority stake in Aer Lingus, or to take other measures to
restore the status quo ante, or to take interim measures in the
meantime.

following the Prohibition Decision,

to divest

The applicant claims in particular that, since the Commission
explicitly treated this minority stake and Ryanair's associated
public offer for Aer Lingus as forming integral parts of the same
single concentration, it follows that the prohibited concentration
has been partially implemented. Moreover,
applicant
contends that Articles 8(4) and 8(5) of the EC Merger Regu-
lation empower the Commission in these circumstances to act
to address the adverse effects on competition arising from this
minority shareholding linking two companies which have been
held to be each other's closest competitors on air transport
routes to and from Ireland.

the

The applicant further claims that the Commission has acted in
breach of Article 21(3) of the EC Merger Regulation by failing
to assert its exclusive jurisdiction and instead leaving open the
possibility on intervention by Member States.

Action brought on 14 November 2007 — Bayern Innovativ
v OHIM — Life Sciences Partners Perstock (LifeScience)

(Case T-413/07)

(2008/C 8/44)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Bayern Innovativ — Bayerische Gesellschaft für Inno-
vation und Wissenstransfer mbH (Nürnberg, Germany) (repre-
sented by: A. Beschorner, B. Glaser, C. Thomas, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Life
Sciences Partners Perstock N.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands)