Case T-74/08: Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Now Pharma v Commission
Date: 2008-02-06
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: European Commission, action for annulment (EU), drugs classification, market approval, medicinal product, pharmaceutical legislation

12.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/43

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Word mark PROMINA for goods
and services in Class 7 (German trade mark No 847 011)

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 the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal
Market was incorrect to take as a basis that the goods were not
similar.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the

Community trade mark (OJ L 11, 14.1.1994, p. 1).

Action brought on 6 February 2008 — Now Pharma v
Commission

(Case T-74/08)

(2008/C 92/85)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Now Pharma AG (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (repre-
sented by: C. Kaletta and I.J. Tegebauer, Rechtsanwälte)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

The Court is asked to:

— annul Commission Decision C(2007) 6132 of 4 December

2007;

— hold that the Commission should take a new decision in
relation to the applicant's application of 6 February 2007,
taking into consideration the Court's view of the law;

— order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

applicant

challenges

the Commission's Decision of
The
4 December 2007 refusing the applicant's request for designa-
tion of the medicinal product ‘Extrait liquide spécial de Cheli-
donii
liquid extract’) as an
radix special
orphan medicinal product within the meaning of Regulation
(EC) No 141/2000 (1).

(‘Chelidonii

radix’

decision

In support of its application, the applicant submits that the
contested
Regulation
infringes Article
No 141/2000. In this respect, the applicant submits, in particu-
lar, that the final negative opinion of the European Medicines
Agency was based on a wrong standard, namely the require-
ments for marketing authorisation in respect of a medicinal

of

3

product pursuant to Article 8(3)(c) of Regulation No 141/2000.
However, according to the applicant, whether a medicinal
product is to be designated as an orphan medicinal product
depends on whether the medicinal product will be of significant
benefit to those affected by the particular condition, within the
meaning of Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 (2).
According to the applicant, the requirements of Article 3(1)(b)
of Regulation No 141/2000 are fulfilled, because the medicinal
product constitutes an orphan medicinal product and will be of
significant benefit.

In addition, the applicant takes issue with the lack of qualifica-
tions and the bias of the expert.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 141/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 16 December 1999 on orphan medicinal products
(OJ 2000 L 18, p. 1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 847/2000 of 27 April 2000 laying
down the provisions for implementation of the criteria for designa-
tion of a medicinal product as an orphan medicinal product and
definitions of the concepts similar medicinal product and clinical
superiority (OJ 2000 L 103, p. 5).

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Centre de
coordination Carrefour v Commission

(Case T-94/08)

(2008/C 92/86)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Centre de coordination Carrefour SNC (Brussels,
Belgium) (represented by: X. Clarebout and K. Platteau, lawyers)

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul the contested decision in as much as it does not lay
down a transitional period as required by the Forum 187 (1)
judgment;

— order the Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By decision 2003/755/EC of 17 February 2003, the Commis-
sion and declared the aid scheme implemented by Belgium in
favour of coordination centres established in Belgium incompa-
tible with the internal market (2). That decision was annulled by
judgment of the Court of 22 June 2006 (3) (‘the judgment in
Belgium and Forum 187 v Commission’) in that it did not provide
the
transitional measures with regard to certain of
for