Case T-373/07: Action brought on 27 September 2007 — EOS v OHIM (PrimeCast)
Date: 2007-11-24
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), trade-mark law

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/37

— in the event of doubt, order an on-the-spot inspection in the
project area and to seek independent technical opinions to
corroborate the applicant's arguments;

Action brought on 27 September 2007 — EOS v OHIM
(PrimeCast)

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

As regards its locus standi on the basis of Article 230 EC, the
applicant considers that the contested decision, concerning the
creation of a Hygienic Landfill Site on an area which is not
within the district of the Municipality of Keratea, is of direct and
individual concern to it insofar as it is a public body responsible
for the protection of public health and the environment in the
area of the subsidised project.

The applicant claims that the contested decision — the content
of which it maintains came to its notice on 13 August 2007 —
infringes a number of provisions of primary Community law
for the protection of health and the environment as well as
provisions of secondary Community law laying down the rele-
vant detailed provisions.

the financing of

the applicant claims that

Specifically,
the
project contravenes the aims of maintaining, protecting and
improving the quality of the environment, the protection of
public health and the prudent and rational use of physical
resources.
in the applicant's view, the contested
Commission decision infringes first and foremost Articles 3, 4
and 6 of Directive 75/442 (1) and Articles 3 and 4 of Directive
91/156 (2), which lay down specific obligations in the areas of
prevention or reduction of waste production and its harmful-
ness.

In addition,

Lastly, according the applicant, it is clear that the creation of a
waste management and disposal facility within a protected area
cannot in any circumstances be regarded as a project eligible for
financing by a financial instrument such as the Cohesion Fund,
which by definition should finance only works complying with
the requirements of protection of the environment.

(1) Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (OJ 1975

L 194, p. 39).

(2) Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 amending Direc-

tive 75/442/EEC on waste (OJ 1991 L 78, p. 32).

(Case T-373/07)

(2007/C 283/67)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: EOS GmbH Electro Optical Systems
Germany) (represented by M. Mentjes, lawyer)

(Krailling,

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 the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 20 July
2007 in Case R 333/2005-4, notified to the applicant by
facsimile on 27 July 2007;

— Order the defendant to pay the costs in accordance with

Article 87(2) and (5) of the Rules of Procedure.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the verbal mark ‘PrimeCast’ for
goods and services in Classes 1, 19, 40 and 42 (Application
No 2854677).

Decision of the Examiner: refusal in part of the application.

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

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

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

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

Action brought on 22 September 2007 — Pachtitis v
Commission of the European Communities and EPSO

(Case T-374/07)

(2007/C 283/68)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Demetrios Pachtitis (Athens, Greece) (represented by:
P. Giatagantzidis, B. Niangou, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities and the
European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)