Case T-431/07: Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik v OHIM — Fernández Martinez (HELLER)
Date: 2007-11-26
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), machine-tool industry, trade-mark law

C 37/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.2.2008

Operative part of the order

1. The application for interim measures is dismissed.

2. Costs are reserved.

Action brought on 27 November 2007 — BP Aromatics v
Commission

(Case T-429/07)

(2008/C 37/37)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: BP Aromatics Ltd (Sunbury on Thames, United
Kingdom) (represented by: A. Renshaw and G. Bushell, Solici-
tors)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision;

— order the defendant and any interveners granted leave to
intervene in the proceedings to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings; and

wide when it is, according to the applicant, an EEA-wide
market; and

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that
the relevant share of sales of Artensa will be below 25 %
when in fact it will exceed 25 % on an EEA-wide basis.

The applicant alleges that if the Commission had conducted a
detailed and proper investigation of the EEA market for purified
terephthalic acid, it would have had serious difficulties in deter-
mining whether the aid is compatible with the common market
which would have made it necessary to open the formal investi-
gation procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC.

According to the applicant, the fact that the Commission had
serious difficulties in assessing the aid during its preliminary
investigation and that it should, accordingly, have initiated the
formal procedure pursuant to Article 88(2) EC is corroborated
by the length of time elapsed between the notification from the
Portuguese authorities and the adoption of the contested deci-
sion.

The applicant further contends that its procedural rights were
infringed as the Commission did not, as it should have, open a
formal investigation under Article 88(2) EC.

Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission infringed its
obligation to state reasons in accordance with Article 253 EC.

(1) Communication from the Commission — Multisectoral framework
on regional aid for large investment projects (notified under docu-
ment No C(2002) 315) (OJ 2002 C 70, p. 8).

— take any other actions that the Court considers to be appro-

priate.

Action brought on 26 November 2007 — Gebr. Heller
Maschinenfabrik v OHIM — Fernández Martinez (HELLER)

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant seeks the annulment of Commission Decision
C(2007) 3202 final of 10 July 2007 by which the Commission
found State aid notified by the Portuguese authorities in favour
of Artensa (Artenius) for the construction of a new plant for the
production of chemical products to be compatible with the
common market pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) EC.

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
Commission infringed Articles 87 EC and 88 EC, the rules
relating to their application, certain essential procedural require-
ments and a number of principles of Community law, in that
the Commission:

— misconstrued and misapplied the multisectoral framework
on regional aid for large investment projects 2002 (1), which
requires an analysis based on the EEA market and not on a
worldwide market;

(Case T-431/07)

(2008/C 37/38)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Gebr. Heller Maschinenfabrik (Nürtingen, Germany)
(represented by: W. Kessler and S. Baur, lawyers)

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

— committed a manifest error of assessment in concluding that
the relevant market for purified terephthalic acid is world-

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Manuel Fernández Martinez (Alicante, Spain)

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/25

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM

of 11 September 2007 in Case R 974/2006-2;

— Dismiss the opposition of the other party before the Second

Board of Appeal, Manuel Fernández Martinez;

— Order the other party before the Board of Appeal, Manuel
Fernández Martinez,
the
proceedings before the Opposition Division and the Board
of Appeal of OHIM and of the present proceedings.

to pay the costs and fees of

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘HELLER’ for
goods and services in Classes 7, 37 and 40 (application
No 3 306 602).

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Manuel Fernández Martinez.

— Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 2 August 2007 in Case No R 1240/2006-2;
and

— order that the costs of the proceedings be borne by the

defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Elena Grebenshikova

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘SOLVO’ for
goods and services in classes 9, 39 and 42 — application
No 3 555 422

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The
applicant

Mark or sign cited: The Community and national word and
inter alia, goods and services in
figurative mark ‘VOLVO’ for,
classes 9 and 42

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Spanish figurative mark ‘HELLER’
for goods in Class 7 (No 2 520 584).

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition in
its entirety

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition and
rejected the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

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

Pleas
in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), since there is no likelihood of confusion between
the opposing marks.

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

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

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and (5) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94, as the trade marks in question are visually and
phonetically similar and as the Board of Appeal did not take all
relevant factors, including the identity of the goods concerned
and the reputation of VOLVO, into account.

Action brought on 29 November 2007 — New Look v
OHIM (NEW LOOK)

Action brought on 28 November 2007 — Volvo Trademark
Holding v OHIM — Grebenshikova (SOLVO)

(Case T-434/07)

(2008/C 37/39)

Parties

(Case T-435/07)

(2008/C 37/40)

Language of the case: English

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volvo Trademark Holding AB (Gothenburg, Sweden)
(represented by: T. Dolde, V. von Bomhard, A. Renck, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Elena
Grebenshikova (St. Petersburg, Russia)

Applicant: New Look Ltd (Weymouth, United Kingdom) (repre-
sented by: S. Malynicz, Barrister, and M. Blair and K. Gilbert,
Solicitors)

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

Form of order sought

— The decision of

the Second Board of Appeal dated
3 September 2007 in Case R 670/2007-2 shall be annulled.

— The Office shall bear its own costs and pay those of the

applicant.