Case T-34/08: Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission
Date: 2008-01-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU financing, European Commission, action for annulment (EU), action programme, child protection, help for victims, violence, woman

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/31

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
40/94 (1) and of the principles to be applied under this provi-
sion to examine whether there is a likelihood of confusion.

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:
Pierre Fabre Médicament, S.A.

(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 18 January 2008 — Bastos Viegas v
OHIM — Pierre Fabre Médicament (OPDREX)

(Case T-33/08)

(2008/C 79/60)

Language in which the application was lodged: Spanish

Mark or sign cited in opposition: National word mark ‘OPTREX’
for goods in Class 5 (pharmaceutical goods).

Decision of
opposition, in respect of certain goods in Classes 5 and 10.

the Opposition Division: Upholding in part of the

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Annulment of the contested deci-
sion, in so far as it rejects the Community trade mark applica-
in
tion in respect of
Class 10.

‘surgical apparatus and instruments’

Pleas in law: Incorrect application of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 on the Community trade mark.

Action brought on 21 January 2008 — Berliner Institut für
Vergleichende Sozialforschung v Commission

Parties

Applicant: Bastos Viegas, AS (Penafiel, Portugal) (represented by:
G. Marín Raigal and P. López Ronda, lawyers)

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

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:
Pierre Fabre Médicament, S.A.

Parties

(Case T-34/08)

(2008/C 79/61)

Language of the case: German

Form of order sought

— Annul the Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM
of 14 November 2007 (Case R 1238/2006-4) so as to
dismiss the opposition lodged by Pierre Fabre and grant
Community trade mark application No 2 429 249
‘OPDREX’ (figurative) and order the opponent to pay the
costs of both proceedings;

— Order the defendant to bear its own costs and to pay the

costs of the applicant;

— Order the intervener to bear its own costs and to pay the

costs of the applicant in these proceedings

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant.

Community
(application for
Classes 5 and 10 and services in Class 35).

trade mark concerned: Figurative mark ‘OPDREX’
for goods in

registration No 2 429 249,

Applicant: Berliner Institut für Vergleichende Sozialforschung e.V.
(Berlin, Germany) (represented by: B. Henning, lawyer)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the Commission's decision of 16 November 2007
disallowing part of the applicant's costs in the context of the
‘Daphne Grant Agreement JAI/DAP/2004-2/052/W’;

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In May 2005, the applicant and the Commission signed an
agreement on support for a project in connection with the
Daphne II programme (1). By letter of 16 November 2007, the
defendant
the
payment to the applicant that was still outstanding, in which
part of the applicant's costs were deemed to be ineligible for
support. The applicant brought the present action against that
decision.

the applicant a revised calculation of

sent

C 79/32

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

29.3.2008

The applicant claims in support of its action that the contested
decision is based on an erroneous assessment of the facts. In
particular, adequate supporting evidence was inappropriately
regarded as being inadequate, and costs of employing temporary
assistants and trainees, together with costs provided for in the
budget and certain travel costs were inappropriately disallowed.

(1) Decision No 803/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 21 April 2004 adopting a programme of Community
action (2004 to 2008) to prevent and combat violence against chil-
dren, young people and women and to protect victims and groups at
risk (the Daphne II programme) (OJ 2004 L 143, p. 1).

Pleas in law: Misapplication of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regu-
lation (EC) No 40/94 (1), as the name ‘SLIM LINE’ is neither a
descriptive indication nor is it devoid of any distinctive char-
acter.

(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 28 January 2008 — Furukawa Electric
North America v OHIM (SLIM LINE)

(Case T-36/08)

(2008/C 79/62)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Furukawa Electric North America,
United States of America) (represented by O. Rauscher, lawyer)

(Norcross,

Inc.

Appeal brought on 28 January 2008 by Luigi Marcuccio
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 6 December 2007 in Case F-40/06, Marcuccio v
Commission

(Case T-46/08 P)

(2008/C 79/63)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase,
Cipressa, lawyer)

Italy)

(represented by G.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

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

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the
(Trade
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
Marks and Designs) of 22 November 2007 in case number
R 1532/2007-2;

— order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market

(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘SLIM LINE’ for
goods in Class 9 (Application No 5 907 266)

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

— annul the order delivered on 6 December 2007 in Case
F-40/06 Marcuccio v Commission of the First Chamber of the
Public Service Tribunal of the European Union insofar as
(a) the action brought by the applicant at first instance was
dismissed on grounds other than absence of legal interest in
(b) the applicant's claims to obtain
bringing proceedings;
compensation in respect of
the damage (‘the damage in
question’) arising from the facts in the case were rejected;
and (c) the applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's
costs;

— declare that the action at first instance was admissible, and
in particular that the applicant, at the time he brought that
action, had a legal interest in bringing proceedings;

— uphold the conclusions relating to compensation for the
damage in question and order the defendant to pay all the
costs borne by the applicant in respect of both the action at
first instance and the present appeal;

— in the alternative, refer the present case back to the Public
Service Tribunal for a ruling on: (a) all those parts of the
present case on which the court did not rule or which were
annulled by the judgment to be made in this appeal; (b) the
costs of the action at first instance and of the appeal.