Case T-3/08: Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Coedo Suárez v Council
Date: 2008-01-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Belgium, Council of the European Union, access to information, action for annulment (EU), document

C 64/54

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Landesanstalt für
Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen v Commission

Lastly, the applicant claims that the measure concerned is in any
event covered by the exception in Article 86(2) EC. It is also
submitted here that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

(Case T-2/08)

(2008/C 64/86)

Language of the case: German

Action brought on 2 January 2008 — Coedo Suárez v
Council

Parties

Applicant: Landesanstalt für Medien Nordrhein-Westfalen (LfM)
(Düsseldorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Rosenfeld and G.-B.
Lehr, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-3/08)

(2008/C 64/87)

Language of the case: French

Form of order sought

Parties

— Annulment of Commission Decision C(2007) 5109 final of
23 October 2007 on the State Aid which the Federal
Republic of Germany wishes to grant for the introduction of
digital terrestrial television (DVB-T) in Nordrhein-Westfalen;

Applicant: Angel Coedo Suárez (Brussels, Belgium) (represented
by: S. Rodrigues and C. Bernard-Glanz, lawyers)

— the Commission to be ordered to pay the costs

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant is challenging Commission Decision C (2007)
5109 final of 23 October 2007 on State aid C 34/2006 (ex
N 29/2005 and ex CP 13/2004),
in which the Commission
the State aid which the Federal Republic of
decided that
Germany wishes to grant to commercial service broadcasters in
the context of the introduction of digital terrestrial television in
Nordrhein-Westfalen, and which was notified to the Commis-
sion, is not compatible with the common market.

In support of its action the applicant submits, first, that the
contested decision infringes Article 87(1) EC as the measure was
wrongly found to amount to State aid. In this connection it is
also submitted that there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

is

In addition it
submitted that an unlawful method of
assessment was used in the context of the assessment under
Article 87(3)(c) EC. In that regard, the applicant also maintains
that there were errors of judgment and assessment and that
there was infringement of Article 253 EC.

As a result of errors of judgment and assessment it is further
submitted that there was infringement of Article 87(3)(b) and
(d) EC.

Form of order sought

— declare this application admissible;

— annul the Council's decision of 30 October 2007 in so far it
refuses to grant the applicant the access sought to several
Council documents relating to, and arising from, an incident
between the applicant and one of his colleagues on
19 February 2004 (minutes of internal meetings, investiga-
tion findings and a report of the security service);

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant seeks the annulment of the decision
of 30 October 2007, adopted by DG F of the General Secre-
tariat of
the European Union, rejecting his
formal request for access to documents relating to an incident
between the applicant and one of his colleagues.

the Council of

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/55

In support of his action, the applicant relies on two pleas.

The first plea alleges infringement of Article 4(1)(b) of Regu-
lation No 1049/2001 (1) and infringement of the obligation to
state reasons for applying that provision.

The second plea alleges infringement of Article 5 of Regulation
No 45/2001 (2) and a manifest error in the application of that
regulation.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of
access
to
documents

the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public
European
and Commission
(OJ 2001 L 145, p. 43).

Parliament, Council

(2) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with
regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institu-
tions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ 2001 L 8,
p. 1)

— order Master Beverage, the other party to the proceedings
before the Board of Appeal, to pay the costs of the proceed-
ings; including those incurred by the applicant before the
Board of Appeal, in case it should become an intervening
party in this case.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Master Beverage Indus-
tries Pte Ltd

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark ‘Golden
Eagle’ for goods in class 30 — application No 3 157 005

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

Mark or sign cited: The Community, international and national
figurative marks and word marks ‘Red Cup’,
‘Gold Blend’ and
representations of a cup for, inter alia, coffee

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

Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM —
Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

(Case T-5/08)

(2008/C 64/88)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Pleas in law: Violation of Article 8(1)(b) and 8(5) of Council
Regulation No 40/94, as the conflicting trade marks have a
high degree of visual similarity because of an identical arrange-
ment of nine elements present in both the trade mark applied
for and in most of
the earlier marks, which are inherently
distinctive.

Parties

Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)
(represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master
Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)

Form of order sought

— Annul

the decision of

the defendant's Second Board of
Appeal of 1 October 2007, Case R 563/2006-2
(CTM 3 157 005);

— decide that the contested CTM application No 3 157 005
RED MUG device with ‘Golden Eagle’ and eagle design must
be rejected;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings,
including those incurred by the applicant before the Board
of Appeal;

Action brought on 4 January 2008 — Nestlé v OHIM —
Master Beverage Industries (Golden Eagle Deluxe)

(Case T-6/08)

(2008/C 64/89)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Société des Produits Nestlé SA (Vevey, Switzerland)
(represented by: A. von Mühlendahl, lawyer)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Master
Beverage Industries Pte Ltd (Singapore, Singapore)