Case T-286/08: Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Fidelio KG v OHIM
Date: 2008-07-21
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: EU trade mark, European Union Intellectual Property Office, action for annulment (EU), footwear industry, trade-mark law

27.9.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/17

the applicant argues that

In the alternative,
the Commis-
sion failed, in assuming there to be a State aid, to examine its
compatibility with the
light of
Article 87(3)(c) EC.

common market

in the

Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Fidelio KG v OHIM

(Case T-286/08)

(2008/C 247/33)

Finally, the applicant claims that the reasoning of the contested
decision is deficient in a number of respects.

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Action brought on 21 July 2008 — Securvita v OHIM
(Natur-Aktien-Index)

(Case T-285/08)

(2008/C 247/32)

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Applicant: Securvita Gesellschaft zur Entwicklung alternativer
Versicherungskonzepte mbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented
by: M. van Eendenburg, Rechtsanwalt)

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

Form of order sought

— Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of 26 May
2008 in Case R 525/2007-4 to the effect that it be ordered
that the word mark ‘Natur-Aktien-Index’ be registered as a
Community trade mark at the Office for Harmonisation in
the Internal Market.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Natur-Aktien-
Index’ for goods and services in Classes 16, 36 and 42 (appli-
cation No 4 861 175).

Decision of the Examiner: rejection of the application.

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

Pleas in law: infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC)
No 40/94 (1), since the mark applied for is not devoid of any
distinctive character.

Parties

Applicant: Fidelio KG (Linz, Austria)
acting as Agent)

(represented by M. Gail,

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 the
Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks
and Designs) of 21 May 2008 (case R 632/2007-4);

— Order the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market
(Trade Marks and Designs) to pay its own costs as well as
those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Hallux’
goods in Classes 10, 18 and 25 (Application No 5 245 147).

for

Decision of the Examiner: Partial refusal of the application.

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal partially upheld.

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation
(EC) No 40/94 (1), as the registered marks concerning the goods
‘orthopaedic article’ and ‘footwear’ do not present any absolute
grounds for refusal.

(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 25 July 2008 — Cadila Healthcare v
OHIM — Laboratorios Inibsa (ZYDUS)

(Case T-287/08)

(2008/C 247/34)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

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

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

Parties

Applicant: Cadila Healthcare Ltd (Ahmedabad, India) (represented
by: S. Bailey, A. Juaristi and F. Potin, lawyers)