Case T-21/08: Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM (QWIK TUNE)
Date: 2008-01-08
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, United States, action for annulment (EU), miscellaneous industries, musical instrument, trade-mark law

8.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/61

The second plea is based on the alleged infringement of the
principles of the legality of Community acts, of the temporal
application of Community acts and of legal certainty in that the
Civil Service Tribunal did not state grounds for its judgment on
the issues relating to the application, in the present case, of the
rules contained in the old and new Staff Regulations.

Further, the appellant alleges that the Civil Service Tribunal
misinterpreted the facts submitted for its assessment.

She also pleads an error of assessment and an infringement by
the Civil Service Tribunal of Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the
Staff Regulations in that it did not provide adequate grounds in
law for its judgment to the extent that it approved the applica-
tion of those provisions as effected by the decision contested at
first instance.

Lastly, the appellant claims that the Civil Service Tribunal also
infringed the principles recognised in Articles 6(1) and 13 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 41
and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European
Union.

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM
(DANELECTRO)

(Case T-20/08)

(2008/C 64/98)

whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark
concerned;

— that the costs be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The Community word mark
‘DANELECTRO’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15 —
application No 117 937

Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division:
Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the
trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

Decision of
the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and
declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have
been filed

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 78(2) of Council Regulation
(EC) No 40/94.

The applicant claims that the question of compliance with the
two month time-limit set by the abovementioned provision for
the filing of the application for renewal of trade mark registra-
tions and payment of the renewal fee was not part of the
appeal. Should the Court decide that the Board was entitled to
examine this issue, the applicant alternatively argues that the
time-limit was calculated in an incorrect fashion.

Language of the case: English

Action brought on 8 January 2008 — Evets v OHIM
(QWIK TUNE)

Parties

(Case T-21/08)

(2008/C 64/99)

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented
by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

Language of the case: English

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

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: Evets Corporation (Irvine, United States) (represented
by: S. Ryan, Solicitor)

— That the decision R 603/2007 — 4 of the Fourth Board of

Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

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

— that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio
in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed
by Article 78(2);

Form of order sought

— that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of
Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to

— That the decision R 604/2007– 4 of the Fourth Board of

Appeal of 5 November 2007 be set aside;

C 64/62

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.3.2008

— that an order be substituted that the application for restitutio
in integrum was brought within the time-limits as prescribed
by Article 78(2);

— that the matter be referred back to the Fourth Board of
Appeal for them to deal with the substantive issue as to
whether all due care was taken to renew the trade mark
concerned;

Form of order sought

— annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of

15 November 2007 in Case R 1096/2006-4;

— the defendant to be ordered to pay the costs.

— that the costs be borne by the defendant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade
mark ‘QWIK TUNE’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 15
— application No 117 994

Decision of the Administration of Trade Marks and Legal Division:
Refused the request for restitutio in integrum and declared the
trade mark as deemed to have been cancelled

Decision of
the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal and
declared the restitutio in integrum request as deemed not to have
been filed

Pleas in law: The pleas in law and main arguments relied on by
the applicant are identical or similar to those relied on in Case
T-20/08, Evets/OHIM (DANELECTRO).

Action brought on 16 January 2008 — Weldebräu v OHIM
— Kofola Holding (Shape of a bottle)

(Case T-24/08)

(2008/C 64/100)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Applicant for a Community trade mark: Kofola Holding a.s.

Community trade mark concerned:
the three-dimensional mark
‘shape of a bottle’ for goods in Classes 30, 32 and 33 (Appli-
cation No 3 367 539)

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

Mark or sign cited in opposition:
the three-dimensional mark
‘shape of a bottle’ for goods in Classes 21, 32 and 33 (Com-
munity trade mark No 690 016)

Decision of the Opposition Division: Rejection of the opposition

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), as there is a likelihood of confusion between the
marks in opposition.

(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 11 January 2008 — Katjes Fassin v
OHIM (Yoghurt-Gums)

(Case T-25/08)

(2008/C 64/101)

Parties

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Applicant: Weldebräu GmbH & Co. KG (Plankstadt, Germany)
(represented by W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Parties

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

Applicant: Katjes Fassin GmbH & Co. KG (Emmerich, Germany)
(represented by R. Uecker, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Kofola
Holding a.s. (Ostrava, Czech Republic)

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