Case T-471/07: Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Wella v OHIM (TAME IT)
Date: 2007-12-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), cosmetic product, trade-mark law

C 51/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

23.2.2008

The applicants further allege that the Council committed an
error of law in relying on Article 9(1) of the Basic Regulation in
a situation that does not fall within the scope of that article, as
the complaint leading to the investigation had not been with-
drawn.

Finally, the applicants invoke a violation of Article 253 EC in
that the contested regulation is inadequately reasoned in respect
of the level of support from Community producers and the
conclusion on Community interest.

According to the applicant, the Board of Appeal based its deci-
sion on a purely theoretical philological analysis of the mark
applied for with regard to grammar, composition and spelling
rules as well as structure and syntax of the trade mark applied
for, completely leaving aside the overall impression of the mark
to the average consumer.

(1) OJ 2007 L 272, p. 1.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on
protection against dumped imports from countries not members of
the European Community (OJ 1996 L 56, p. 1).

Action brought on 21 December

2007 — Dow

AgroSciences and Others v Commission

(Case T-475/07)

(2008/C 51/99)

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Wella v OHIM
(TAME IT)

Parties

(Case T-471/07)

(2008/C 51/98)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Wella AG (Darmstadt, Germany) (represented by: B.
Klingberg, K. Sandberg, lawyers)

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

Form of order sought

— That

the decision of

the Second Board of Appeal of

24 October 2007 in Case R 713/2007-2 be annulled;

— that the defendant be ordered to bear the costs of

the

proceedings including the costs of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Trade mark concerned: The international word mark ‘TAME IT’ for
goods in Class 3 (international registration No 879 186) —
request for EC territorial extension of protection in accordance
with the Madrid Protocol

Decision of the examiner: Refusal on absolute grounds for all the
goods applied for

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partly upheld the appeal and
allowed the EC territorial extension of the protection of interna-
tional registration No 879 186 to proceed in part

in law:

Pleas
Council Regulation 40/94.

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c) of

Applicants: Dow AgroSciences Ltd (Hitchin, United Kingdom),
Makhteshim-Agan Holding BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Makh-
teshim Agan International Coordination Center
(Brussels,
Belgium), Dintec Agroquímica — Produtos Químicos Ld.a
Italy), Dow
(Funchal, Portugal), Finchimica SpA (Manerbio,
Agrosciences BV (Rotterdam, Netherlands), Dow AgroSciences
Hungary kft (Budapest, Hungary), Dow AgroSciences Italia Srl
(Milano, Italy), Dow AgroSciences Polska sp. z o.o. (Warszawa,
Poland), Dow AgroSciences Iberica SA (Madrid, Spain), Dow
AgroSciences s.r.o. (Prague, Czech Republic), Dow AgroSciences
LLC (Indianapolis, United States), Dow AgroSciences GmbH
(Stade, Germany), Dow AgroSciences Export SAS (Mougins,
France), Dow AgroSciences SAS (Mougins, France), Dow AgroS-
ciences Danmark A/S (Lyngby-Taarbæk, Denmark), Makhteshim-
Agan Poland sp. z o.o. (Warszawa, Poland), Makhteshim-Agan
(UK) Ltd (London, United Kingdom), Makhteshim-Agan France
SARL (Sevres, France), Makhteshim-Agan Italia Srl
(Bergamo,
Italy), Alfa Agricultural Supplies SA (Halandri, Greece) (repre-
sented by: C. Mereu and K. Van Maldegem, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision.

— Order the Commission to take such measures as are neces-
sary to comply with the annulment of the contested decision
in accordance with Article 233 EC,
including, but not
limited to, ordering it to request the Member State compe-
tent authorities to reinstate the relevant national trifluralin
registrations withdrawn as a result of the contested decision,
and extend any relevant deadlines as required to comply
with the judgment of the Court.

— Declare the illegality, and inapplicability to the applicants, of
the
Article 3(3) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of
European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
on persistent organic pollutants and amending Directive
79/117/EEC.