Case T-132/08: Action brought on 2 April 2008 — ENRI Electronics v OHIM (MaxiBridge)
Date: 2008-04-02
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, Germany, action for annulment (EU), electronics industry, trade-mark law

7.6.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 142/31

The applicants further submit that the directive on the transpar-
ency of financial relations between Member States and public
undertakings (1) has not been complied with in the present case.

Action brought on 3 April 2008 — Schräder v CPVO —
Jørn Hansson (Lemon Symphony)

(1) Commission Directive 2006/111/EC of 16 November 2006 on the
relations between Member States and
transparency within

transparency of
public undertakings as well as on financial
certain undertakings (OJ 2006 L 318, p. 17).

financial

(Case T-133/08)

(2008/C 142/57)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Action brought on 2 April 2008 — ENRI Electronics v
OHIM (MaxiBridge)

(Case T-132/08)

(2008/C 142/56)

Parties

Applicant: Ralf Schräder (Lüdinghausen, Germany) (represented
by: T. Leidereiter and W.-A. Schmidt, lawyers)

Defendant: Community Plant Variety Office

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of CPVO:
Jørn Hansson (Søndersø, Denmark)

Parties

Form of order sought

Applicant: ENRI Electronics GmbH (Adelberg, Germany) (repre-
sented by N. Breitenbach, lawyer)

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM

of 30 January 2008 in Case R 1530/2006-4;

— Annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of CPVO of
4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007) and declare the adap-
tation of the variety description for the plant variety Lemon
Symphony null and void;

— In the alternative, annul the decision of the Board of Appeal

of CPVO of 4 December 2007 (Case A 007/2007);

— Order the defendant to pay the costs.

— Order OHIM to pay the costs, including the costs incurred

in the course of the appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘MaxiBridge’ for
goods in Classes 9 and 17 (Application No 4 899 647).

Decision of the Examiner: Application rejected

Community plant variety right concerned: Lemon Symphony

Proprietor of the Community plant variety right: Jørn Hansson

Decision of the Board of Appeal of the Community Plant Variety
Office which is being contested: Adaptation of a variety description
in accordance with Article 87(4) of Council Regulation (EC)
No 2100/94 (1)

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Appellant before the Board of Appeal: the Applicant

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1) inasmuch as the mark in respect of which applica-
tion is sought does not constitute an indication which needs to
be kept freely available.

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

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

No 1239/95 (2)
the
summoned to the hearing in due form;

inasmuch as

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Pleas in law:

— Infringement

of Article

59(2)

of Regulation

(EC)
applicant was not

— Infringement of Article 75 of Regulation No 2100/94 inas-
much as the applicant was unable to present his comments
orally or in writing on the absence of locus standi;