Case T-191/08: Action brought on 22 May 2008 — JOOP! v OHIM
Date: 2008-05-22
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), clothing industry, jewellery and goldsmith's articles, trade-mark law

19.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 183/27

Pleas in law and main arguments

Action brought on 22 May 2008 — JOOP! v OHIM

in

Belgium,

established

In the present case, the applicant seeks the annulment of the
Commission Decision 2008/283/EC of 13 November 2007 on
the aid scheme implemented by Belgium for coordination
Decision
centres
2003/757/EC (1) following the partial annulment of that first
decision by the Court of Justice (2). In that ruling, the ECJ held
that the 2003 decision did not provide transitional measures for
those coordination centres with an application for renewal of
their authorisation pending on the date on which the contested
decision was notified, or with an authorisation which expired at
the same time as or shortly after the notification of that deci-
sion.

amending

(Case T-191/08)

(2008/C 183/51)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

The contested decision creates transitional periods for the cate-
gory of centres covered by the Court's ruling.

Applicants: JOOP! GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by:
H. Schmidt-Hollburg, W. Möllering, A. Löhde, H. Leo, A. Witte,
T. Frank, A. Theil, H.-P. Rühland, B. Willers and T. Rein)

The applicant states in support of
contested decision:

its contentions that

the

— is incompatible with Community law on existing aids, as

consistently interpreted by the European Courts;

— denies the centres their legitimate expectations to benefit
from a reasonable period after the Commission's final deci-
sion closing the existing aid procedure (notified to the appli-
cant on 17 March 2008), to re-arrange their business and
fiscal affairs;

— infringes Article 254(3) EC;

— by providing for the retroactive levying and payment taxes
in an existing aid case, in effect orders the recovery of the
aid as if it was illegal aid and this fails to respect the prin-
ciple that existing aids schemes should only be changed
prospectively, at a date after the final Commission decision
closing the existing aid procedure;

— fails to respect the legitimate expectations of coordination
centres which relied on the order of the President of the
Court of Justice of 26 June 2003 (3) as a legal basis upon
which they could obtain the renewal of authorisations;

— infringes the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimi-
nation by providing different treatment without objective
justification for different groups of centres.

(1) OJ 2008 L 90, p. 7.
(2) Joined Cases C-182/03 and C-217/03, Belgium and Forum 187 v

(3) Joined Cases C-182/03 R and C-217/03 R, Belgium and Forum 187 v

Commission, [2006] ECR I-5479].

Commission, [2003] ECR I-6887].

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

Form of order sought

— Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 6 March
2008 in Case R 1822/2007-1;

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
to pay the costs including those incurred during the appeal
proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: figurative mark representing an
exclamation mark, for goods in Classes 14, 18 and 25 (Appli-
cation No 5 332 176).

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the registration.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), as the mark applied for has distinctive char-
acter and its availability does not have to be preserved.

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

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