Case T-97/08: Action brought on 20 February 2008 — KUKA Roboter v OHIM (colour mark orange)
Date: 2008-02-20
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), industrial robot, trade-mark law

26.4.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/37

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has sufficient distinc-
tive character and is not descriptive.

arguments for rejecting the Community-wide importance of the
subject-matter of the complaint are misjudged.

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 of 7 April 2004 relating
to the conduct of proceedings by the Commission pursuant to Arti-
cles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty (OJ 2004 L 123, p. 18).

Action brought on 22 February 2008 — Global Digital
Disc v Commission

Action brought on 20 February 2008 — KUKA Roboter v
OHIM (colour mark orange)

(Case T-96/08)

(2008/C 107/62)

Language of the case: German

(Case T-97/08)

(2008/C 107/63)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: KUKA Roboter GmbH (Augsburg, Germany) (repre-
sented by A. Kohn, lawyer)

Applicant: Global Digital Disc GmBH & Co. KG (Dresden,
Germany) (represented by: E. Stein, lawyer)

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

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Form of order sought

— Annul

decision
7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips;

COMP/C-3/38.803

Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

— annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the
Internal Market of

Office
for Harmonisation in the
14 December 2007 in Case R 1572/2007-4;

of

— order the defendant to pay the costs.

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The contourless colour mark
orange for goods in Class 7 (Application No 4 607 801)

The applicant contests Commission decision COMP/C-3/38.803
of 7 December 2007 — Global Digital Disc (GDD) v Philips. In
that decision the Commission dismissed the
applicant's
complaint,
infringements of
Article 82 EC by the party complained of in connection with
that party's licensing practice in the CD-R field, pursuant to
Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 773/2004 (1).

in which it pleaded several

In its grounds of complaint the applicant contends first that the
Commission failed to fulfil
its obligation to give reasons.
Furthermore the defendant infringed the applicant's rights of
defence. Finally the applicant complains that the Commission's

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement of Article 28 EC as the contested decision
constitutes a measure having equivalent effect to a quantita-
tive restriction on imports

— Infringement

of Article 7(1)(b)

(EC)
No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has distinctive char-
acter

of Regulation

C 107/38

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

26.4.2008

— Infringement of Articles 73 and 74 of Regulation No 40/94
as there is no or an insufficient statement of reasons for the
contested decision and the facts have not been examined
sufficiently

— Misuse of powers as the defendant took extraneous consid-
erations into account in its statement of reasons for the
contested decision in respect of the requirement of avail-
ability.

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

Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

Appeal brought on 25 February 2008 by Asa Sundholm
against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal delivered
on 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07 Sundholm v
Commission

(Case T-102/08 P)

(2008/C 107/64)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: Asa Sundholm (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by S.
Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis, E. Marchal, lawyers)

by which she sought the annulment of the Commission's deci-
sion drawing up her Career Development Report for the period
from 1 July 2001 to 31 December 2002, since the first report
for that period was annulled by the judgment of the Court of
First Instance of 20 April 2005 (1).

in law alleging an error of

In support of her appeal the appellant puts forward a single
plea
infringement of
Article 233 EC and failure to comply with Community law in
relation to the special obligation to state reasons.

law,

She claims that the CST erred in law by disregarding the scope
of the judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005
and of Article 233 EC in holding that the Appointing Authority
was not
required, when taking the necessary measures to
comply with the judgment and in taking account of its grounds
and the time lapse between the annulled decision and that
adopted pursuant to that judgment, to provide a more extensive
statement of reasons in respect of the obligation on the adminis-
tration to state reasons in a specific manner for a Development
Report drawn up pursuant to a judgment of the Court of First
Instance and, according to the appellant, out of time.

In addition, she submits that the CST disregarded the force of
res judicata with absolute effect of a judgment of the Court of
First
the
comments unlawfully taken into consideration constitutes a fair
rectification of the evaluation of the appellant.

Instance by accepting that

the mere deletion of

(1) Case T-86/04 Sundholm v Commission, not published in the ECR.

Other party to the proceedings: Commission of
Communities

the European

Action brought on 23 February 2008 — ars Parfum
Creation & Consulting v OHIM (shape of a perfume bottle)

Form of order sought by the appellant

— quash the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Second

Chamber) of 13 December 2007 in Case F-27/07;

— give judgment again and do what the first court ought to
have done: annul the decision drawing up the applicant's
for the period from 1 July
Career Development Report
2001 to 31 December 2002, adopted pursuant to the judg-
ment of the Court of First Instance of 20 April 2005;

(Case T-104/08)

(2008/C 107/65)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

— order the defendant to pay the costs at first instance and on

Parties

appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant: ars Parfum Creation & Consulting GmbH (Cologne,
Germany) (represented by: A. Späth and G. Hasselblatt, lawyers)

In her appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the judg-
ment of the Civil Service Tribunal (CST) dismissing the action

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