Case T-481/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and SVZ v Commission of the European Communities
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, European Commission, Netherlands, action for annulment (EU), combined transport, economic discrimination, economic support, fishing port

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/43

Finally,
reasoning of the contested decision is contradictory.

the Commission relies on a plea alleging that

the

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Cofra v
Commission

(Case T-477/07)

(2008/C 64/69)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Cofra srl (Barletta, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese,
lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — SIMSA v
Commission

(Case T-480/07)

(2008/C 64/71)

Language of the case: Italian

Form of order sought

Applicant: Società
(Salerno, Italy) (represented by: A. Calabrese, lawyer)

imballaggi metallici Salerno Srl SIMSA

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Commission of 17 October 2007;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Form of order sought

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Commission of 17 October 2007;

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The pleas and main arguments are similar to those relied on in
Case T-417/07 Lodato Gennaro & Co.

Action brought on 17 December 2007 — Nuova Agricast v
Commission

(Case T-479/07)

(2008/C 64/70)

Language of the case: Italian

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Deltalinqs and
SVZ v Commission of the European Communities

Parties

Applicant: Nuova Agricast srl (Cerignola, Italy) (represented by:
A. Calabrese, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Parties

(Case T-481/07)

(2008/C 64/72)

Language of the case: Dutch

Form of order sought

Applicants: Deltalinqs and SVZ, Havenondernemersvereniging
Rotterdam (Rotterdam, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Meulen-
belt, lawyer)

— annul Decision SG/E/3/MIB/mbp D(2007) 8992 of

the

Commission of 17 October 2007;

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

C 64/44

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision;

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Casur
S. Coop. Andaluza (Viator, Spain)

— Order the Commission to pay the costs.

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicants challenge the Commission's decision of 10 May
2007 (OJ 2007 C 227, p. 4) concerning the Flemish rules on
support for inter-modal transport via inland waterways (Aid
measure N 682/2006 — Belgium). In the contested decision the
Commission regards the support measure as compatible with
the common market and decides not to raise any objection.

In support of their application, the applicants claim that there
has been an infringement of the principle of non-discrimination
laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1107/70 of 4 June
1970 on the granting of aids for transport by rail, road and
inland waterway (OJ English Special Edition, 1970(II), p. 362)
and Articles 12 and 73 EC. They state that the subsidy is avail-
able on the transhipment of containers in Flemish inland ports
when the containers enter or leave the European Union via a
Flemish sea port but not when a sea port is in another Member
State. They claim that this constitutes discrimination on grounds
of nationality.

— Annul the decision of 19 September 2007 of the First Board

of Appeal of OHIM in Case R 293/2007-1;

— direct the relevant Cancellation Division of OHIM to declare
invalid Community trade mark registration No 3 517 431
EGLÉFRUIT;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark subject of
the application for a
declaration of invalidity: The word mark ‘EGLÉFRUIT’ for goods
and services in classes 29, 30 and 31 — Community trade
mark No 3 517 431

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: Casur S. Coop. Andaluza

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

They also argue that the subsidy leads to a distortion of compe-
tition, as it seriously disadvantages all ports in north-west
Europe which trade with the Flemish hinterland, and particularly
the port of Rotterdam.

Trade mark right of the party requesting the declaration of invalidity:
The Community and national word and figurative marks ‘UGLI’
for goods in classes 29, 31 and 32

They also plead infringement of the obligation to investigate
and state reasons. They maintain that the Commission has failed
to investigate the consequences for competition and to explain
why an economic investigation was not necessary.

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

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 52(1)(a) of Council Regu-
lation No 40/94 because the Board of Appeal misapplied the
test of
likelihood of confusion between the conflicting trade
marks.

Action brought on 20 December 2007 — Cabel Hall Citrus
v OHIM — Casur (EGLÉFRUIT)

(Case T-488/07)

(2008/C 64/73)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Insight Direct
USA v OHIM — Net Insight (Insight)

(Case T-489/07)

(2008/C 64/74)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Cabel Hall Citrus Ltd (Grand Cayman, Cayman
Islands) (represented by: C. Rogers, Barrister)

Parties

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

Applicant: Insight Direct USA, Inc. (Tempe, United States) (repre-
sented by: M. Gilbert and M. Moore, Solicitors)